- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:02:22 -0400
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Jun 7, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > For review in advance of the upcoming f2f, if possible: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html > v 1.20 2006/06/07 10:39:55 I have a number of organizational/editorial concerns, but I think just one technical disagreement: [[ The namespace specification, roughly speaking, says that a namespace name cannot be assumed to be dereferenceable. Any software component that is written assuming that any namespace name must be dereferencable is violating the namespace specification. It may be that the namespace owner has guaranteed that they will provide a document at the namespace name, but this must be on a subset of the entire set of namespace names. As a result of this, generic XML software should not be written to assume dereferencability of namespace names. ]] The conclusion should be something like "generic XML software must be written to be robust in the case of failure of a namespace name to resolve, just like any other URI handling software." It's not a violation of the namespace spec to assume that namespace names are dereferenceable. Editorially, I can see a tension between writing for two different audience: 1. an audience that is predisposed to believe what we write, and just wants to know what our position is. For this audience, having the conclusions up front and the justification later, in case they're really curious, seems OK. I think this is the way the document is organized. 2. an audience that we're trying to convince. For this audience, getting to "fact: URIs support persistence as well as it is in-practice possible to do so" before any justification is a turn-off. Also, there's a 3rd sense of 'persistence' that often comes up in URN discussions: persistence of the binding between an identifier and its meaning, regardless of availability or otherwise of representations. I think that http is clearly the most successful technology for this sort of persistence too -- [evidently DO has made this case later in the doc.] -- ah.. time to send this... more in the meeting, I suppose. -- in the meeting: In DO's case study, the id: case is not hypothetical; ironically, it's called tag: -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 21:02:35 UTC