Re: use of fragments as names is irresponsible

>Note that all of the algorithms, methods, and other tokens are 
>named within a flat name space rooted at

Point of information on the use of '#' in the xmlsec specifications. This 
convention was borrowed from RDF at the outset of xmldsig. (I believe its 
was used in RDF because of [1] and its rules for composing identifiers). 
While I probably would not do so again, it was the best practice for 
'URI-as-identifier' known to me at the time.  This convention has been 
continued within the xmlsec related specifications (xmldsig, xenc, and now 

'''This means that identifiers for arbitrary RDF concepts should have 
fragment identifiers. This, in turn, means that RDF namespaces should end 
with "#".'''

It was not adopted because of any particular desire for a "flat" name space. 
(That simply wasn't our concern.) And while I don't feel strongly about:
I still do find:
convenient for namespace management. Our specifications have names/ids that 
correspond to each identifier, so describing that identifier is as simple 
as redirecting from the namespace/identifier URI to the URL of the actual 
specification. (Unfortunately, many clients forget the fragment identifier 
upon redirection...) Maintaining information in a separate structure 
corresponding to a heirchical path seemed like more bother than it merited. 
However, if one has a relatively large namespace I think it is an 
appropriate strategy and one I have asked of IANA for example.

If the TAG were to able to provide some guidance (amongst all that 
discussion <smile/>) that this practice should be discontinued I'm sure it 
would have an affect on subsequent specifications -- and perhaps even XKMS.

Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 14:33:04 UTC