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

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

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:35:50 -0400
Message-ID: <008e01bfc2ab$c19002e0$e9a55c8b@ridge.w3.org>
To: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, "David Hunter" <david.hunter@mobileQ.COM>
Cc: <xml-uri@w3.org>

-----Original Message-----
From: keshlam@us.ibm.com <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
To: David Hunter <david.hunter@mobileQ.COM>
Cc: xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it

>>No, I don't think we can agree even on this.  There are those who would
>>that the Namespace spec says exactly what it was supposed to say.  Well,
>>okay, with the exception that they let relative URIs slip through...
>If the phrase "URI References" had been replaced by  "strings in URI
>Reference syntax," it would have said exactly what it meant to say.

That would have been equally awful.  Few folks would have imagined that
a spec could be so weasly as to quote the syntax but quietly destroy the

No, if it had meant to say "strings" is should have said "strings".

If it had meant that associating a schema wiht a namespace was harmful
then it should have said so, not simply that it was not a goal of the
namespace spec.

>Unfortunately that's not what some folks feel should have been intended.

The problem with weasle words is that they get you though the logjam, get a
out by allowing anyone to charitably read ito the spec something they are
content with.
It is not a sound inventment.

Tim BL
Received on Saturday, 20 May 2000 18:33:58 UTC

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