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

Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal)

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:42:20 -0400
Message-Id: <200005181740.NAA12857@hesketh.net>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, xml-uri@w3.org
At 12:56 PM 5/18/00 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>Fine.  See you on the packaging list.  

There isn't one, at least not a public one.

>Do we agree this issue is packaging
>and is not namespacing?  Or do you think there is something that governs
>the interpretation of the names in a namespace that should be categorically
>reserved to be expressed in a package wrapper or description?  

I'm not asking for 'catagoricallly reserved to be expressed in a package
wrapper or description'.  I am, however, asking that we stop pointing
namespace URIs at schemas until we sort out the implications of that activity.

>I don't
>a_priori accept that there is any such packaging-reserved semantics.  My
>bias going into the discussion is that there should be equivalent
>intradocument and extradocument ways to say anything that needs to be
>covered here.

I don't a priori accept that there are any semantics whatsoever here, and
that its a good idea to take a conservative approach to establishing such
semantics.  I'd suggest that discussion of such semantics be removed from
the discussion of relative URIs, as those semantics are clearly
controversial and built on particular interpretations of the problem at hand.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 13:40:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC