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

> Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
> > How would you define "expected" names?
>
> I wouldn't.  I'd put something into Namespaces Revised, probably
> in a non-normative
> appendix, that would say how different kinds of URIs might be
> used in other
> contexts, or not used at all.  For instance, a mailto URI
> wouldn't be useful for
> retrieving a schema.

But then there is nothing in the namespace REC which would indicate that the
namespace URI is supposed to be useful to retrieve a schema. Actually the
schema spec defines a different method for this, right?

> > > My possibly very mistaken impression (counterexamples, please speak
> > > up) is that almost all of its defenders are those who were
> intimately involved
> > > in creating it.
> >
> > well I wasn't involved in creating it:-)
>
> Counterexample recognized.

However I would argue that I *expect* the creators of the spec to defend
it...

> I'm not advocating changing the spec, only the verbiage.   Here's
> an example of the
> kind of statement I'd like to see in a revision:
>
> "The attribute's value is the namespace name identifying the
> namespace.   It must
> have the form of a URI reference, although for the purposes of
> this specification
> the namespace name is treated as an uninterpreted character
> string.   Other
> specifications and applications may choose to attach their own
> interpretations to
> the namespace name and to place additional requirements on its form or
> interpretation.  (URI references are used in this context because
> they allow such
> additional interpretations.)"

Sounds very reasonable.

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 15:22:06 UTC