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

Re: the case of two bats

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:21:13 -0500
Message-ID: <39240A69.3CB4A09E@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <reschke@medicaldataservice.de>
CC: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, xml-uri@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> > From: xml-uri-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > Dan Connolly
> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 4:48 PM
> > To: Simon St.Laurent
> > Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: the case of two bats
> >
> > ...
> >
> > But does that motivate a special exception to make namespace
> > identifier syntax different from identifiers for all
> > other Web resources?
> >
> > ...
> 
> I think this question should have been asked *before* the namespace
> recommendation became a recommendation, right?

As I recall, it was asked, and the answer at the time the WG
decided yes, an exception was called for (myself dissenting).
Earlier drafts said:

	"[Definition:] The AttValue in the NSDecl production is a URI which
	functions as a namespace name to identify the namespace."

	-- http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-xml-names-19980916

where the term "URI", strictly speaking, excludes relative URI
references
and #fragids.

But then the WG decided to include #fragids and changed the spec
to say "URI reference", little realizing that this also
allowed relative URI references. Little did I realize
that the text said that a relative URI reference was
to be used as a namespace name without expanding
it to absolute form.

Indeed, an unfortunate turn of events, but here we are.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 11:21:34 UTC

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