RE: Divide the problem

Dan Connolly 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/

I think it's worth discussing this. Basically the question is what
"...identified by..." actually means. I don't agree that the REC says that
the namespace actually *is* the resource behind the URI ref. What it says is
that you can take the URI ref to *identify* the namespace, that's it.

> > (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.

If you do not specify what to expect there, what is an application supposed
to do with the document in this location?

> > 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.

I suppose that with "it works" you mean that there are test implementations
of XML schema which actually use it. Nobody is argueing with this. The issue
is: is this the best way to achieve this goal? The namespace REC says that
it is not the goal of the namespace name to point to a schema document. The
XML schema spec itself defines an alternate mechanism to achieve the  same
result.

However, starting to put things "behind" namespace URIs on W3C's own web
site certainly smells like the attempt to make something a fait accompli
while the discussion whether this is the right thing to do still continues.

Julian

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 09:02:28 UTC