RE: First Draft of summary of TAG issue abstractComponentRefs-37

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Paul Cotton [SMTP:pcotton@microsoft.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:10 AM
> To:	dorchard@bea
> Cc:	www-tag@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: First Draft of summary of TAG issue abstractComponentRefs-37
> 
> This seems to be missing some options:
>  
> a) Roy proposed just using a URI convention (slashes separate namespace
> URI and component identifier)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0148.html 
> This email was specifically mentioned in the minutes of the TAG meeting
> that assigned the issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2003/03/24-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
> And Roy is quoted as saying:
> "[Roy] 
> In the CMS world, a compound hierarchical document is no different from
> a hierarchical directory system -- all names are hierarchies and the
> names are separated by "/" all the way down to the smallest atom of
> content. WSDL defines a compound document namespace rooted at its
> namespace URI. So, add a slash and define the hierarchy below the
> namespace URI according to WSDL."
>  
> b) Noah M has asked about using query strings (? separates namespace URI
> and component identifier)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Apr/0010.html (W3C
> Member only)
> 
I asked the same question as Noah at the XML Schema f2f [1] in March when we were discussing Schema Component Designators (a parallel concept to the .  In fact, I asked about the feasibility of either query strings or what amounts to the "PATH_INFO" parameter of CGI 1.1 [2] (i.e., very similar to Roy's suggestion above).

In response to my question, Michael Sperberg-McQueen speculated that (sorry, what follows is how its recorded in the minutes...but you'll get the idea) "a namespace is a URI stuff before # is a ns, after is something in the ns. if it's a ?, the whole thing is a URI. Same for /. semantics are not associated with URIs in general. Only by using the # can you make a "compound thing".

I don't totally buy that rational for using fragment identifiers and completely agree with Roy's statement that "Somewhere along the line the W3C got hooked on the notion that URIs are opaque and hierarchy is meaningless. .  That is bogus." [3].

pvb

References
[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/03/xml-schema-ftf-minutes#ab2b3b3b3c17c11
[2] http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/env.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0148.html

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 15:04:17 UTC