Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace

On Sat, 3 Jun 100, John Cowan wrote:
> Tim Berners-Lee scripsit:
> > We are losing track of reality. 

Exactly.

> > A mailto: URI necessarily identifies an internet mailbox.  A mailbox
> > is a mailbox. A namespace is a namesapce. A mailbox can be a
> > group-mailbox. A mailbox can be a personal-mailbox.
> > A mailbox can NOT be a namespace.
> 
> Neither can a (text, hypertext, hypermedia) document BE a namespace.
> Not even if it contains an XML Schema document.

Exactly, if it looks like a duck, it is a duck.  Anything 
short of it being a duck is impractical for 90% of us
dumbells out here.  

This is the first bit of "common sense" I've heared in a
long time.   This leads us to a single, obvious suggesion:

1.  Define a new URI which is explicity for namespaces
    define its qualities so that it works as we 
    expect a namespace to work (uniqueness); and such 
    that it has no additional connotations (that it is 
    a mailbox or a hypertext or raw-data, etc.)   

    I suggest the java package style...
       "xmlns:com.clarkevans.timesheet"

2.  Deprechiate all other URI forms, set a 5 year phase out
    period; this should be enough for a slow transition.

3.  Until (and after) the phase out, treat NS comparison
    as the current spec says, a byte-for-byte comparison.

4.  If someone wants to associate a XSchema or RelaxSchema
    or some *other* non-namespace resource to a namespace,
    then let that specification define such a binding.

This would end a whole slew of debates and draw 
us to a reasonable close.

Clark

Received on Saturday, 3 June 2000 11:39:02 UTC