- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:21:13 -0500
- 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