- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:44:54 -0600
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 13:22 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Dan Connolly wrote: > >I would have thought that > > > ><grammar version="1.0" > > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/grammar"> > > > >was sufficient info to ground the document in the web and, > >among other things, find the standard schema. I would think > >that schemaLocation was only useful/necessary in case the > >author meant for the document to match some more constrained > >schema. > > That would require built-in knowledge of the combination of attributes > above or some way to resolve the information such that a schema can be > found. Without a centralized registry this would only be possible if the > namespace name resolves to the schema or a reference to it, exactly. > there isn't > much agreed upon technology for that, well, GET works pretty well, either returning a schema directly or, as you say, a reference to one. But I agree, people seem to be hesitant to support it in the case of namespaces and schemas. I'm trying to figure out _why_. > and it's certainly not required by > the Schema recommendations. Technically, it's no more or less required by the Schema recommendations than it is by the HTML Recommendations. Nothing about <a href="urn:who-knows-how-to-find-about-this">...</a> violates the letter of the HTML spec. Somehow, the spirit of the HTML spec is that this is a bad idea, but it's sort of accepted for namespaces and schemas. I don't understand why. There's not much reason, that I can see, for the web of namespaces and schemas to be any less available-on-the-web than the web of ordinary hypertext documents. Granted, the normal handling of a document doesn't usually involve dereferencing the namespace URI, while the normal handling of and HTML link does... following namespace pointers is more of a debugging/view-source-time thing to do, but it's still darned useful to be able to use them as pointers rather than having to look them up some other way. > >Also sent a comment because the namespace document says > >"This namespace may change without notice." > >speech grammar namespace document gives misleading change policy > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005OctDec/0075.html > > The note is concerned with changing the namespace, the policy you cite > there is mostly concerned with namespace names and namespace URIs, I'm > not sure a namespace and its name are interchangable concepts. I can only agree that the terminology makes this discussion awkward. It made our discussion of namespaceState-48 quite awkward this week. "(I don't care a whole lot which terminology we pick, but please let's pick.)" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/12/13-tagmem-minutes#item03 > The policy does attempt to talk about stability, but the text does not > really make much sense to me, and does not seem to reflect reality very > well. Issues with the current policy were raised during the xml:id > review; it seems the policy has not been revised since. Quite; there's an outstanding action on that... TBL to provide a draft of new namespace policy doc (http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri) and start discussion on www-tag [8 Mar 05] -- in progress 30 Aug -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2005/03/action-summary.html (we don't seem to be keeping the issues list up to date http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#nameSpaceState-48 ) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 20:45:26 UTC