Re: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (was Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined )

----- Original Message -----
From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>; <xml-uri@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (was Re: Re
Deprecate/Undefined )


> I'm not sure there is a "Kesselman/Connoly proposal ".

Hmmm.  I guess I'm the only one who reads
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0854.html as
Dan agreeing (albeit reluctantly) with you that a namespace id is an
absolute URI+locator, hence absolutization is moot.  I thought, especially
after Tim Bray endorsed "Dan's Proposal" (which I deconstructed as his
agreement with your proposal), that we were getting close to a modus
vivendi. Apparently not, sigh. I guess I've been drinking that Milch vom
Paradies that John Cowan talks about in his .sig ;~)

So, I ask a point of clarification: What is "Dan's Proposal" that people
have referred to over the last few days?

Are we just stuck on whether to "deprecate" or "forbid" relative URIs?  I
agree that "forbid" is more crisp ... but it also implies re-working parsers
and/or DOM implementations to detect and reject relative URIs, no?  Do we
really want to go there?  If the semantic web advocates could agree to
"deprecate" relative URIs, isn't that an acceptable way of moving forward?

Unless I'm missing something, there's little *practical* difference between
"namespace id is a literal string that just happens to look like a URI" and
"namespace id is an absolute URI+locator, and relative URIs are deprecated".
It concedes the philosophical point that Tim Berners-Lee insisted on at the
beginning of this round of the debate without making us re-work the DOM 2
spec or any known parsers or XSLT implementations.  That seems like an
acceptable way to resolve this mess to me.

Received on Monday, 26 June 2000 20:38:30 UTC