- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:45:47 -0800
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, www-tag@w3.org
On Dec 4, 2003, at 1:47 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > So just to be sure we're on the same page, do you agree with DanC that > this means that the way in which XML 1.0 plus Namespaces makes use of > QNames is inconsistent with the principles of Web Architecture? The Namespaces Rec succeeds in making XML vocabularies into Web resources. It did not attempt to make elements and attributes, as abstractions, into Web resources. That would have been a worthy goal, but would have required the invention of quite a bit more new technology. > If so, isn't that a bit of an embarrassment, at least? I can live with it. I haven't yet seen a proposal for cooking up URIs for elements and attributes that has much hope of getting consensus behind it. Cheers, Tim Bray http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 09:54:31 UTC