- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:52:10 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 02:38 PM 6/12/00 -0400, keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote: >I'm still not sure that URIs themselves are a good choice for namespace >identity. I think a lot of the argument for using URIs/URI References as namespace identifiers is to reuse the URI infrastructures, and that's what seems to keep carrying us back into the dereferencing debate. Unless some key participants are willing to make a strong statement that namespaces are _only_ about identification, I suspect we'll keep plunging into topics you'd rather avoid. >I _am_ pretty sure that making a relative reference to that >identity is a Bad Idea and should be discouraged or (preferably) forbidden >until and unless someone comes up with a really compelling use case that >gets us all to agree on what this is supposed to mean. I haven't seen any compelling use cases personally, and I've come to the conclusion that warning labels are all that we really need here. Let the spec stand as it is - strings that contain URI references - and scream loudly that "relative URI references may get you into trouble!" Applications and documents may proceed from there, informed by the namespace identifiers and any context they may or may not have regarding base URIs. Now if only we could harness the energy of the spinning going on here... 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 14:49:50 UTC