- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:27:52 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 09:11 AM 6/12/00 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote: >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... Fine - how about 'out of scope for this layer of processing'. 'Applications may use this information as they find appropriate.' Definitely not forbidden, but not forced into Namespaces in XML - and I think pretty close to what the Microsoft proposal was offering. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Monday, 12 June 2000 09:25:31 UTC