- From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:26:28 +0100 (BST)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org
> But RFC 2606 recommends the use of .example for documentations. I take the statement in RFC 2606 as meaning "of the four domains test, example, invalid, and localhost, example is the one for use in documentation". I don't see anything deprecating the use of the existing example.* name, and the real point of 2606 seems to be to provide for the case where a top-level domain is needed (which it isn't in this case). In the absence of anything prohibiting the use of example.org, I prefer it on aesthetic grounds. About your other points: I will change the RFC reference to point to IETF. The phrase "absolute URI with an optional fragment identifier" does not imply that a URI can contain a fragment identifier, any more than "ham with eggs" implies that ham can contain eggs. But there's another point which needs to be resolved - should namespaces have to be URI references? If so, they can't contain non-ascii characters which is inconsistent with (for example) system identifiers which are defined to be escaped if necessary by the processor. Should they perhaps be IURIs (or some similar term)? -- Richard
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 10:26:30 UTC