- From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:05:39 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
> But we do. If as Tim Berners-Lee and Dan Connolly request, the >decision is to change the namespace name from >being a name, to being the URI identifying the namespace as a >resource, then if the URI used a retrievable uri >scheme and querying the URI returns a document then one would have the >right to expect that the document had some connection with the >resource. We agree that we disagree. "Having the right to expect", and having a standard implementing that expectation are NOT the same thing; we can grant the former and still defer the latter until we have agreement on the details. As far as the proposed interpretation of Namespaces is concered, behavior is only defined up to the URI. There is _NO_ assertion that accessing that URI has any meaningful or relevant results. Anything past that point is another spec's problem, and should not be allowed to hamstring the effort to close out namespaces. Especially since half the other specs now in progress seem to be gated by the Namespace delayh. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 09:06:31 UTC