- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:58:01 -0400
- To: <abrahams@acm.org>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Cc: <abrahams@acm.org>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
>> >Pardon a possibly naive question, but what do you mean by a language in this >> >context? Do languages have a 1:1 relationship to anything else such as >> >applications? Language: 2a) "Words and the methods of combining them for the expression of thought." -OED. (I'd use a quote from a logic textbook but I am at work and it is at home) I would be happy to add my weight to the "deprocate relative option" so long as we can establish the underlying basis we need for XML applications. - a languge is (here) the set of names, their constraining syntax, and a defined meaning for any combination of names which satisfies those constraints on syntax. - a namespace corresponds to a language. I know that some don't want this model but honestly without it all work on XML should stop immediately and be restarted with a proper footing. What is XHTML? a Language! That is actually what the letter stands for. There is meaning in it. The meaning is NOT carried by out of band discussion, it is carried in the XHTML specification. - a namesapce is identified by a URI. (That is, if any resource is identified by URI u, and a namespace is identified by URI u, then that resource *is* that namespace) The DSig folks had a schema which used the Schema namespace. It was valid for a while and then became invalid. The namespace changed. The language changed. Unfortunately the namespace URI was not changed. Now, they want to move on to Candidtae Rec stage. It is really important that this specificatoin can refer to the language (xml-schema as of today) in which it is written. So while I can understand the definitions people give of namespaces being sets of names which have no relation to particular languages, that does not give the W3C or the world what it actually needs to use XML in practice. In my opinion we do not have time to hold everything up while we develop alternative notions of meaning and of syntactic constraint, with many-one mappings and so on, when we have to move ahead and much of what has already been done actually assumes that the namespace really does include meaning as well as just a set of words. PLEASE can we go ahead on that basis? If so I will be happy to put my weight behind deprocating relative URIs to get out of this mess we are in now. Tim Berners-Lee
Received on Monday, 19 June 2000 15:58:26 UTC