- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 07:44:48 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <reschke@muenster.de>
- CC: XML-uri@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > > I think that one of the reasons why this dicussiosn takes so long and > progresses so slowly is that several issues have been thrown together. Maybe > we should focus on properly defining them, and to then discuss them > separately. > > #1 is the original question about how to handle relative URI refs in a > namespace name. > > #2 produces the most heat here: What is the namespace name? Is it really > just a name which happens to follow the URI ref syntax (a), or should it be > treated as an URI [+fragment id] (b). > > (a) is what the official W3C recommendation says. Please cite evidence of this claim. I find it to be entirely false: "[Definition:] An XML namespace is a collection of names, identified by a URI reference [RFC2396]," "[Definition:] The attribute's value, a URI reference, is the namespace name identifying the namespace. " http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/ > (b) seems to be what TBL > and some others would prefer. Even *if* one would go for (b), I claim that > you still wouldn't be able to put something at the specified location, until > there exists a W3C recommendation which actually defines what to expect > there. Interesting claim. I see no justification. > Specifically, the new approach of putting XML Schema files at > locations specified by W3C namespace names should be immediately stopped > until there is a consensus about this. Again, why not? It works, and it's useful. > > Julian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 08:43:39 UTC