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

• From: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
• Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 14:54:39 -0700
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <NDBBKEBDLFENBJCGFOIJAELJCLAA.masinter@attlabs.att.com>

RFC 2387, multipart/related, provides for packaging, including
URL-originated
material, without requiring that you use relative URLs to keep the package
together.

That is, there is no need to use relative URLs for packaging, and this
reduces the justification for retaining relative URLs as namespace
identifiers, if motivated by packaging needs.


> >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?

Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 17:55:48 UTC