Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace

> None of this contradicts what is in the spec now.  It presents a different way of
> describing what is there now.

agreed. One almost suspects that the current wording is deliberately
vague to paper over cracks that arose due to earlier versions of this
discussion (but I wasn't there, so probably I shouldn't suggest such
scurrilous gossip:-)

> There are lots of such algorithms around, 

True although most of them don't lead to the easily memorable names
that using URI gives. 

> as several people have pointed out, and a
> central registry wouldn't be such a bad idea anyway.
Hmm I don't agree with that.

> Hmmm.  Suppose that you don't pay up, and so someone else gets control over this
> URI.   I don't see how that negatively impacts the use of that URI as a namespace
> name, at least as far as the namespace spec is concerned.

If they get the URI then namespace processing is unaffected, what is
at the URI is immaterial, but they then might define another namespace
with the same name, or to put it another way, define a different use
for the same namespace.

This would then become a problem for an application trying to
distinguish these two uses.

All this is very hypothetical which is why people are happy enough
to use http based names.

David

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 14:34:42 UTC