Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view)

Let's look at the proposal again:

The proposal is to clarify the wording
of this paragraph in the XML NS spec [1] to instead of saying:

[[[Definition: URI references which identify namespaces are considered
identical when they are exactly the same character-for-character. Note
that URI references which are not identical in this sense may in fact be
functionally equivalent. Examples include URI references which differ
only in case, or which are in external entities which have different
effective base URIs.]]]

instead to say:

[[[According to RFC 2396 a URI reference can be either a relative or an
absolute URI. The scheme of an absolute URI identifies the URI space to
which that URI belongs. A URI space is typically defined with a set of
properties concerning uniqueness, normalization rules etc. as well as
one or more default mechanisms for resolving URIs belonging to that URI
space.

Relative URIs are always defined within a context. Typical examples are
relative references within the current document (fragment identifiers)
and relative references between documents at the same or closely related
level of hierarchy in the URI space. Within the same context, relative
links remain internally consistent and can act as unique identifiers
(within that context) without actually being expanded relative to the
context within which they are defined.

An application is responsible for knowing the context within which a
relative link is defined. RFC 2396, section 5, provides several
mechanisms for establishing the proper context within which relative
URIs are defined. An application is also responsible for ensuring that
relative identifiers are not treated as unique identifiers across
contexts as ignorance of context can make distinct identifiers appear
undifferentiated.]]]

I continue to have a big problem with this: it takes text that defines when
URI references are considered identical and replaces it by text that does not
define when URI references are considered identical, and indeed does not use
the word "identical" at all.    Whatever flexibility in the definition might
be useful, the failure to define terms would make this a disaster for anyone
trying to use the spec without having participated in the discussions that
led to it.

Paul Abrahams

Received on Monday, 19 June 2000 18:02:47 UTC