Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> But for now we need a solution to this so that the DOM can move forward.
> 
> The fact that relative URIs are terated diferently by different groups
> already clearly means that they should be warned against as a minimum.
> 
> Then, when you don't use then, URI comparison and string comparison are the
> same - something we can take advantage of by allowing XML software at the
> lower laters to be simple in its comparisons, but allowing the full richness
> to the upper layers.
> 
> This seems to me the only way this can go.  We have made many attempts to
> make complex compromises and wacky alternatives, but I think we come back to
> the basic options considered
> by the xml-plenary as the options.  I don't think this is a time for
> compromise. The NS spec in adopting compromise wording (bits to please each
> camp) left open the mess we are in now.
> I think we have to be clear.

This sounds to me like a good propsal, I interpret it as saying

* confirm the current literal comparison semantics for namespace names
* Re-issue namespace spec saying using relative URI references is
  a bad idea.
* Re-issue xpath to use literal (probably with a repeat of the warning
  about using relative uris)

If the spec was going to be re-issued with descriptions of good
practice I would also be in favour of it (or an additional spec)
recommending some format of file to place at the namespace URI
in the case that you do use a dereferencable URI scheme.
As Tim Bray mentioned some kind of `packaging' document that could
refer to schema, stylesheets, or anything else would be good.
(placing a schema file there dorectly is usually bad)


David

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 05:45:16 UTC