- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 May 2003 09:17:56 -0500
- To: xml-names-editor@w3.org
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Regarding http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml-names11-20021218/ Larry Masinter made a comment in www-tag that I think is worth reflecting in the namespaces spec: excerpt from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0157.html > ============================ > > Of > * http://www.example.org/ros%e9 > * http://www.example.org/ros%c3%a9 > * http://www.example.org/ros%c3%A9 > * http://www.example.org/ros%C3%a9 > * http://www.example.org/ros%C3%A9 > > None of these should be used as a namespace name. > Namespace processors may assume they will never encounter > these. > > http://www.example.org/ros%e9 > > is preferable. > ================================== > Among > * http://www.example.org/wine > * http://www.Example.org/wine > * http://www.example.org/Wine > > the second should never be used as a namespace > name. Using the first and third as distinct namespace > names isn't a great idea, but it isn't as bad to > disallow them. Namespace processors may assume > they will never encounter the second example. See also: Choosing and comparing URIs a presentation on tag issue URIEquivalence-15 (and irieverywhere?) Dan Connolly, Feb 2002 Take-home points * If you mean the same thing, refer to it the same way. * When choosing names for distinct things, choose clearly distinct names * Absolute URIs* are the basis of comparison * w/optional fragments * Clients/consumers should not usurp servers'/providers' naming rights http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/02cacuri/all.htm -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 10:20:31 UTC