W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Namespaces 1.1: should example namespace IRIs have a # appended?

From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:27:16 GMT
Message-Id: <200211281827.SAA19885@sorley.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
To: abcoates@TheOffice.net
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org

This is a formal response from the XML Core WG to your comments on the
Namespaces in XML 1.1 last call working draft.

If we haven't heard from you by the end of Monday December 9th, we
will assume for the purposes of our planned CR request that you have
no objection to our resolution.

Commenter email address: abcoates@TheOffice.net

> Subject: Namespaces 1.1: should example namespace IRIs have a # appended?

> Given the current TAG discussion on TBL's suggestion, that URI
> references that represent abstract ideas should have the form of a URI
> with a single # appended so that they can be identified as not
> referring to concrete representations, I would like to suggest that
> the XML Core WG liaise with TAG to resolve this, and update the
> namespace IRI reference examples to match.  If TBL's suggestion is
> accepted, I assume it would required nothing more than appending a #
> to each example IRI reference in Namespaces 1.1.
> 
> It would send a strong and visible signal that people should think
> about the types of IRI references that they use for namespaces (since
> it would almost certainly get coverage in the technical press).  I
> assume the WG doesn't want Namespaces 1.1 to contain a discussion of
> could/should/might happen if you dereference a namespace IRI reference
> that is an IRI, so adding # to the example references would be a cheap
> way of making people think a bit more about what namespace IRI
> references really mean.  This is all predicated on the acceptance of
> TBL's suggestion, but I do think it would be valuable if this could
> make it into Namespaces 1.1, since it could be a *long* wait for
> version 1.2.

Summary: rejected

The TAG has not yet come to a conclusion on this, and it does not seem
likely that they will in the near future.  We do not think it would be
appropriate to pre-empt their decision by making this change at
present.

-- Richard Tobin, Namespaces 1.1 editor
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 13:27:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:27 UTC