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

Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it

From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:38:20 -0400
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
cc: David Hunter <david.hunter@mobileQ.COM>, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <852568E4.006668A3.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>
>As a compromise, it was agreed that namespace names *as such* didn't need
>to be dereferenceable.  However, many upcoming specs do define them to
>point to something.

Many upcoming specs need to define them as _associated_ with something.
That pointing action need not be done by the namespace name itself.


>>       [S]ome very sloppy work went on in
>>       crafting the spec, since it doesn't say what they
>>       wanted it to say.
>
>On this I think that all can agree.

Hindsight is 20:20.

The downside of development cycles measured in web-years is that you don't
have as much time to think about implications and side effects.
Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 14:39:30 UTC

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