- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:11:25 -0400
- To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
- Cc: abrahams@acm.org, David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>, xml-uri@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 12:39:20AM -0400, keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote: > >Any revision of the namespace spec should make it absolutely clear what is > expected of >a namespace name in terms of what it identifies or might > identify and why URI references >are used for this purpose. > > Half-agree: Any revision should make clear the rationalle of why URI > references (or, in the Forbid case, URI+) was chosen. But the answer to > "what does it identify" is, as far as the Namespace spec itself is > concerned, "a point in URI space". Whether anything can be retrieved by > accessing that point it out of scope for this spec. I'd prefer something different than "out of scope" because I've seen people on this list take "not a goal of this spec" to mean "forbidden". Just because something is out of scope doesn't mean its forbidden. Someone else can come along latter and define what that means and actually use it... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Monday, 12 June 2000 09:22:36 UTC