- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:02:25 -0600
- To: 'Dan Connolly' <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org
Yes. Good. In that case, nevermind. Effectively, that shifts weight to the other foot. Someone who doesn't have a resource at the location so identified might want to justify why not instead of why. len From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Connolly On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 12:42 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > That the URI is or is not a URL. > > This ground has been thoroughly covered. A namespace attribute value is > not, by definition and of necessity, a locator. Indeed, this ground has ben thoroughly covered, and the consensus we came to is that yes, by best practices and principles of web architecture, a namespace attribute value *is* a locator; i.e. it's enough to look up, in the web, information about the names and definitions: "A URI owner SHOULD provide representations of the resource it identifies" http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#pr-describe-resource "The owner of an XML namespace name SHOULD make available material intended for people to read and material optimized for software agents in order to meet the needs of those who will use the namespace vocabulary." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#pr-namespace-documents -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 20:02:44 UTC