- From: Dan Vint <DVint@lexica.net>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:11:28 -0700
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
>
> However, it creates an exception to the usual rules of URI-reference
> interpretation.
>
It seems like this might be the real problem - it seems that a syntax was
used (URI references/format) without the requested standard use of a URI
reference. In this case Namespaces has stated that it isn't meant to point
to anything! - was that a valid use of the URI syntax? What was the intent
of the "Namespace spec"? It seems to me it was just to create a unique name
and nothing more and that any format of the "string" for that name would be
as good as any other and that URI was the format selected.
In regards to "commitments" documents and specifications are created with
the best of intents, but if there is an error or a problem you still have to
be able to correct the problem.
And as someone in a previous thread posted: "the current number of documents
that needs to be changed is no where near the number that might be a problem
if things stay the way they are" (or something like that!)
..dan
************
Dan Vint Lexica LLC
Sr XML Analyst (415)901-3623
http://www.lexica.net
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 16:06:41 UTC