W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

RE: A proposal

From: Steve Rowe <sarowe@textwise.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 19:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005172350.TAA14945@hemen.Textwise.com>
To: xml-uri@w3.org, masinter@attlabs.att.com
Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> > Requirements:
> > 
> > [a] All string-equal namespace URI must be namespace-equal.
> 
> well, there's no agreement about this. Two relative URI references
> in two different documents are argued to point to different
> namespaces because the two different documents have different base.

No argument from the namespace specification, however.

> > [b] All absolutized-equal namespace URI must be namespace-equal.
> 
> You should define 'absolutized-equal', since it isn't clearly
> defined.

absolutized-equal := string-equal after resolution to absolute form
                     (presently by means of the algorithm defined in
                     RFC 2396 [1], as augmented by XBase [2])

> > [c] If namespace compliance is redefined, then current documents
> >     must remain in compliance and interpretable as they are now.
> 
> This raises the value of "retaining compliance" above the value
> of "insuring interoperability". This also is not agreed.

Only assuming that all of the given requirements cannot be met in an 
interoperable way.

> > Solutions:
> 
> Until there's agreement on the requirements, it's hard to discuss
> solutions.

There will never be agreement on the requirements.  There doesn't 
have to be, as long as a solution which addresses all of them can be 
found.  (BTW, I think you're improperly conflating "value" with 
"agree to" here; once use-cases which entail a particular requirement 
have been identified, disagreements are not over the 
existence/validity of the requirement, but are rather over the 
importance placed in supporting the community which shares the 
use-case.)  I simply listed the requirements as they have been 
presented, without regard to "agreement".

Respectfully,
Steve Rowe
MNIS-TextWise Labs

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt, section 5.2
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 19:54:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC