Re: Can everyone be happy?

At 08:26 AM 6/22/00 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
><flame condescension="on" spellchecker="0" frustration="98%"  >
>> there seems to be fairly clear consensus that nothing in
>>particular need be identified by the namespace name if used as a URI.
>
>This is a typical misuse of terminology by the few left on this list
>who do not understand the model in the URI specification.
>If a "namespace name" does not "identify" a namespace then
>how are these words being used?  Is a namespace nothing,
>because it is abstract?  Is there a complete inability here to comprehend
>something whcih is not a string of characaters?

I think you're conflating 'do not understand' and 'do not agree' here.
While I understand that you're "98%" frustrated, it might be wise to step
back, realize that a large contingent of people do not accept your
underlying assumptions, and leave the flamethrower at home.

As for 'the few left on this list', I see no signs of a 'silent majority'
favoring complete URI usage.  If anything, I see the opposite, though
undoubtedly my private emails are tilted toward those who share my opinions.

>>The only two people I've seen speak against this with any real
>>conviction are Dan Connolly and Tim Berners-Lee.
>
>I think you will find that Jon Cowan and Michael Mealing have been
>doing a good job explaining the URI architecture.  Many others have
>contributed and or learned a lot. Larry Masinter has
>dropped in from time to time,  but the URI working group is done and
>disbanded and you can't expect them to turn up in force to patiently
>re-explain the same thing over 1500 messages.  I am getting tired.

I think we're all getting tired.  

The problem isn't simply URIs - it's the 'proper' usage of URIs in a
particular XML context.  I'm not sure that setting up the URI community
against the XML community (with John Cowan valiantly attempting to bridge
the gap) and vice-versa has proven to be a good way to get anything done.

In short, neither side is able to convince the other.  I continue to quote
Larry Masinter's "In theory, theory and practice are the same thing.  In
practice, they're not."  From my perspective that suggests that the theory
that's been constructed around URIs is not necessarily practical, but I
suspect Larry may see the theory constructed around XML as the impractical
part.

>>However they have
>>rather central roles at W3C and that basically is the cause of the
>>current difficulty, that W3C HQ don't like their own recommendations
>>and don't agree with the current notions of best practices for XML and
>>namespace use.
>
>When a subcommunity within the web denegrates, misuses and
>generally abuses though lack of understanding another part of the
>web architecture it unfortunately falls on staff at W3C to try to hold
>the web together.   This is no fun.

Again, this isn't 'denigration', 'misuse', and 'general abuse' through
'lack of understanding'.  It's severe disagreement about the nature of the
tools being used, how to integrate them, and whether a square peg is being
forced into a round hole.

>There have been a lot of quite nonsensical things on this list
>said in quite justified lack of understanding of an abstract
>model.  We have all spent a lot of time working though them

There have been a lot of quite nonsensical things on this list, not all of
them brought on by 'lack of understanding'.

>If indeed it is true that Dan and I are the only ones who think
>that a namespace should be identified by a URI, then we would
>of course bow out. The implication I fear would be that we roll all
>spaces which define XML namespaces
>back to Candidate Rec until a
>new model can be proposed for saying what language a document
>is written in.

I think you're overstating your case.  I think pretty much everyone on the
list (myself included) is willing to support the use of URI _syntax_ for
identifiers. The question remains whether that URI syntax should come with
all the undocumented, unformalized, and controversial philosophical baggage.

>Current notions of "best practice" for thinking up globally unique names
>such as "foo" may be felt to be best practice by a set of people
>who use and see a very small set of names: but a decade of experience with
>scalable identifier systems suggests that using arbitrary strings sucks
>dead puppy dogs tails.

I think the 'best practices' are easily summed up:
* use URIs over which you have control - i.e., in a domain name or other
domain (PEN) you own.
* create conventions for those URIs that are both descriptive and unique
* use URIs that will last over time and which are not subject to contextual
change

I don't think this approach demands the fire and brimstone approach you
seem to be promoting.

>If, as Eve suggests, the xml subcommunity (maybe out of pure "not invented
>here" syndrome)
>would like to break free of nasty URIs and reinvent an entire new system
>under their own control, and re-attack the problems of establishment and
>delegation
>of authority, and distributed name services, then that is of course the
>choice
>which  anyone can make, and people do indeed try this every few years.

I'd like that possibility to remain open, but I don't think it's what most
people want.  Stating that using URIs for namespaces is a square peg in a
round hole means that there is work to be done.  We can either mortise the
hole or round the peg.  Failing consensus on those options, other pegs are
available - as a last resort.

>The advisory comittee would have to think very hard about pledging resources
>to such a fragmentary effort and I would have to think very hard as to
>whether
>I would see XML as a useful markup language for the web.

I'd suggest that the advisory committee move slowly, and that the director
take a few steps back to calm down.

Disagreement does not always signal a lack of understanding by one or both
parties.  It signals that values are not shared, that technical
difficulties may have to be worked out, and that perhaps no one will get
exactly what they want.

I disagree with your views quite violently, I believe.  That doesn't mean I
think you don't understand what you're talking about.  It simply means that
I do not share the underlying visions you uphold as correct, and find the
arguments you make on that basis unconvincing.

Shouting about 'lack of understanding' doesn't bring this discussion any
closer to even a vague consensus.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

Received on Thursday, 22 June 2000 11:51:21 UTC