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

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

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:58:16 -0500
Message-Id: <200005192250.SAA1003274@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@attlabs.att.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
At 02:54 PM 2000-05-19 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
>RFC 2387, multipart/related, provides for packaging, including
>material, without requiring that you use relative URLs to keep the package
>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.

Agreed, not a necessity.  

[aside: packaging, not namespacing...]

Does MIME allows multiparts to be passed which refer among the several
parts by relative URLs?  I left this discussion before it was all done.
Does such use of relative URLs among the related parts serve at times as a
convenience in porting multiparts?


>> >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 18:47:50 UTC

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