namespaceDocument-8: possible interaction with Namespaces in XML 1.1

I am researching the history of the TAG work on the namespaceDocument-8
Issue [0]. 

Namespaces in XML 1.1 [1] states:

"The attribute's normalized value must be either an IRI reference - the
namespace name identifying the namespace - or an empty string. The
namespace name, to serve its intended purpose, should have the
characteristics of uniqueness and persistence. It is not a goal that it
be directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists). An example
of a syntax that is designed with these goals in mind is that for
Uniform Resource Names [RFC2141]. However, it should be noted that
ordinary URLs can be managed in such a way as to achieve these same
goals."

But your document "Architectural Theses on Namespaces and Namespace
Documents" [2] states:

"6. Namespace names should not be URNs.
Given that namespace documents are a desirable thing, and given that at
the present time, URNs are not effectively usable in the general
population for retrieval of resources, URNs are not appropriate for use
as namespace names."

Given the above two statements I have a couple of questions:

Q1: Do you consider these two statements to be in conflict with each
other e.g. would you prefer that the Namespaces 1.1 specification be
changed to discourage the use of URNs?

Q2: Your text "URNs are not effectively usable" might lead me to believe
that there might be an effort ongoing to standardize how to retrieve
resources using URNs.  Do you know of such an effort?  

/paulc

[0] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8 
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/#ns-decl 
[2] http://www.textuality.com/tag/Issue8.html
[RFC2141] ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2141.txt 


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 17:39:41 UTC