- 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