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

Re: Irony heaped on irony

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:56:41 -0400
Message-ID: <000101bfc291$dfe3fbd0$e9a55c8b@ridge.w3.org>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
Cc: <xml-dev@xml.org>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
...or presumably (4)  the schema document returned on a query of the
namespace URI
 contains some information in xml-schema and some in rdf-schema.  (and some
in XHTML for people?)

Isn't this what multiple namespaces in a document can be used for?


Dan Connolly wrote:
>Stefan Haustein wrote:
>> > Dan Connolly:
>> > > David Megginson:
>> > > Please remove the schema from http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace
>> > > put it somewhere else, then update the schema for schemas to follow
>> > > this (better) practice.  This also has the advantage that users can
>> > > refer to the specific version of the xml: schema that they want to
>> >
>> > Hmm... issuing an address for each specific version of the schema
>> > spec that we put on the web server is a reasonable idea, but
>> > removing the schema from http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace
>> > removes the ability to use namespaces in schemas in the most
>> > straightforward way.
>> In my opinion, the best solution would be to remove the confusing
>> http:// from the namespace name.
>That would be a good suggestion if we didn't intend to make
>definitive material about our schema available on demand.
>But we do, and http is a the most straightforward way
>for us (and lots of other folks, I expect) to do that.
>> However, at least you should
>> append /xml-schema when translating a namespace name into an
>> XML Schema URL. Otherwise, an XML Schema can collide with e.g.
>> an RDF schema describing the same language.
>If I were concerned with such collisions, I'd just
>use schemaLocation to do the pointing, rather than
>appending /xml-schema. But I'm not concerned with
>such collisions; I expect either
> (1) publishing an XML Schema and an RDF schema
> for the same namespace will be so rarely useful
> that it needn't be supported by the technology;
> only one of them is available using just
> the namespace identifier, and to find the
> other one, you need another pointer (e.g. schemaLocation)
> (2) support for using namespace identifiers as MIME type
> parameters in http Accept: headers will mature... something like:
> Accept: text/xml;namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"
> (3) a separate MIME type for RDF (say... model/rdf)
> will be registered, allowing us to make RDF and XML Schema
> available using just the namespace identifer,
> just like we make PNG and GIF for images.
>[more on the rest of your message separately...]
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 20 May 2000 15:28:44 UTC

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