Re: Draft minutes for TAG weekly 20 Dec 2005

/ "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> was heard to say:
[...]
|    Issue NamespaceState-48
[...]
|     DC: It says that the terms *are* two-part identifiers, whereas in  RDF
| the
|     terms are defined to be a single identifier (a URI)
|     ... so at least a subset of namespace terms use single-part  identifiers
[...]
|     DC: should we just remove the sentence or actually say what we  want to
| say
|     in the document?
|
|     <ht> I only find the following of relevance: "Good practice:  QName
| Mapping
|
|     <ht> A specification in which QNames serve as resource  identifiers MUST
|     provide a mapping to URIs.
|
|     <ht> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Dec/0114.html
|
|     VQ: inclined not to make a decision without Norm, let's defer  this and
|     move on
|
|    Issue namespaceDocument-8
|
|     VQ: also requires Norm, let's defer this and move on

Based on the discussion for which I was present and on my reading of
the minutes, I propose the following change to the objectionable
paragraph in namespaceState-48:

   An XML namespace has a namespace name (a URI) and a set of local
   names (NCNames as defined in [XML Namespaces]). Using a URI
   leverages the well-understood URI allocation mechanisms of [WebArch
   Vol 1]. [XML Namespaces] defines a syntactic shorthand for the
   combination of a namespace name and a local name, the qualified
   name, or “QName”. (Note that languages which use QNames as
   identifiers are required to provide a mapping from QNames to URIs.)

I think we might achieve consensus on that text.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.