- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:02:20 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Uh, I apologize I forgot to add [1] which is
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0270.html
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox
http://www.idoox.com/
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Chris,
> it doesn't preclude it, as well as the wording of Namespace spec
> doesn't preclude putting the schemas at the namespace URIs. Many
> do it this way but generally, this is not what the namespace URIs
> were designed for. Thus the Namespace spec doesn't make any
> guarantees about dereferencability of the namespace URIs, and I
> think we shouldn't make any such guarantees for actor URIs either
> (at least in the core SOAP, extensions can do anything anyway). 8-)
> In my post [1] I didn't mean to forbid dereferencing of any of
> the URIs, I was just reacting to Noah's call for specifying our
> guarantees about dereferencability of the URIs.
> Best regards,
> Jacek Kopecky
>
> Idoox
> http://www.idoox.com/
>
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Christopher Ferris wrote:
>
> > Jacek,
> >
> > I agree that next and none wouldn't be dereferencable,
> > but that doesn't preclude use of relative URI actor
> > values that are relative to the base URI...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 14:02:21 UTC