W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2005

Re: speech grammar spec recommends xsi:schemaLocation [namespaceDocument-8, namespaceState-48]

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
Message-Id: <1134679494.21371.197.camel@dirk>

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,


>  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
  -- 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:10 UTC