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

Re: SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony]

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:00:59 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200005210000.BAA18372@nag.co.uk>
To: timbl@w3.org
CC: xml-uri@w3.org

> I would like to say that the statement that dereferencing the namespace URI
> was "not a goal" I took on review as stating that it was not a goal of the
> Namespace spec itself.  I assumed that it allowed other specs to do it.

Even I agree with the above statement:-)

> I had no idea that the XML community would decide that in their
> wisdom they would _prohibit_ other groups from doing it.

You are not prohibited from doing it, but you are `prohibited' from
using dereferencing to schema as use cases for changing the spec.
That is, you should firstly consider the use cases that _are_ a goal.

> The RDF group was that which was asked to use XML for consistency and
> interoperability. They required every RDF property, hence every XML element,
> to have a well-define identity in the URI space,

which is why it is so odd that RDF use of namespace URI is so bizarre.
Why doesn't it arrange to insert a / (or anything) if the namespace URI
doesn't end with a /, rather than just tacking on an element name on the
end and hoping for the best. I've even seen it suggested somewhere that
_everyone_ should distort their namespaec URI to account for this broken
behaviour. 



David
Received on Saturday, 20 May 2000 20:01:32 UTC

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