- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:10:10 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
At 02:55 PM 8/23/00 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >You'll have to judge for yourself whether the outcome >is sufficiently comprehensive. > >If you find it insufficient, you might encourage >us to persue... > >an XML-URI Activity Proposal for discussion >Dan Connolly (Tue, Jul 11 2000) >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jul/0025.html After thinking it over for a few weeks, I think I need to oppose this proposal, and publicly. While I would very much like to see the work described [1] undertaken, I don't consider the W3C a sufficiently neutral place in which to perform the work. It has already been made painfully clear on this list that both the Director of the W3C and certain W3C staff have very strong opinions regarding URIs and their proper usage, which they hold to be correct - effectively, the problem is already considered 'solved', and the difficulty is with those who "just don't understand." Given the role of the Director and Staff in W3C process, as well as the enormous gulf between the URI and XML communities that has appeared repeatedly on this mailing list, I believe this proposal faces extreme difficulty in establishing credibility with the two communities. Keeping the activity public can help to some extent, but I've never seen a public mailing list in which all relevant activity took place in public. The Process section acknowledges these problems to some extent, but I don't feel it addresses them strongly enough. I would suggest that the W3C XML-URI Activity Proposal be dropped for now, and that the URI community return to the IETF for a revision of RFC 2396 that makes underlying assumptions explicit, and which clarifies the mechanisms for comparing various kinds of URIs in different contexts. I hope that the discussion on this list might have illustrated why such comparison rules are important. At that point, it may be useful to reopen the issues of URI usage in XML. For now, I'd suggest maintaining the status quo. I'd also suggest avoiding the introduction of new uses of URIs in cases where the resource identified may not actually be relevant to the transaction. [1] - http://www.w3.org/2000/07/xup932 Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
Received on Friday, 25 August 2000 11:07:10 UTC