RE: Divide the problem

Dan Connolly wrote:

> > What it says is
> > that you can take the URI ref to *identify* the namespace, that's it.
>
> If I understand you (and if I take the liberty of
> assuming you meant URI in stead of URI ref just there),
> you're saying that
> 	some URI i identifies a namespace N
> does not imply that
> 	the resource identified by i is N
>
> To me, those are just different ways of saying the same thing.
> How can one be true while the other is not?

Because "identify" to me means "names", and it does not mean "is identical
to". Just because I pick a URI as a namespace name doesn't make namespace
identical to what the URI stands for.


> > > > 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.
>
> It's not a goal of the namespaces spec. That doesn't mean that it's
> not a goal of specs layered on top of the namespaces spec.

Well, AFAIK it is not a goal of the schema spec either.

> > 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.
>
> Isn't trying it out a good way to see if there are problems?

Sure, but I would argue that http://www.w3.org is not necessarily the right
place to do experiments like that. If it can't be avoided, I would still
prefer that the schema document returned actually comes with a statement
that this is just experimental usage of namespaces / schema.

> The discussion of whether a self-describing web can work
> or not has gone on for years without solid/persuasive evidence
> on one side or the other. Tim and I (among others) think it can work
> and will be revolutionary. And yes, we're using our
> position of leadership (i.e. our write access to
> the W3C web site) to convince as many as we can.
> This is our job. It's our stated responsibility to
> "lead the Web to its full potential."
>
> If Tim had waited until everybody agreed that the Web would work
> before setting up the first web server and releasing the
> first clients, we would have no Web.

Fine.

However, it gets a bit more complicated once a formal process (drafts,
recommendations, payed membership...) is established, and *while* something
is being worked out, the W3C web site at the same time starts using it in
one specific way which is currently topic of heated discussions. Labeling
the documents as "experimental" sure would make this easier to accept.

Julian

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 14:33:38 UTC