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

Re: Call the question!

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:58:52 -0400
Message-ID: <3929755C.A4C062FD@reutershealth.com>
To: keshlam@us.ibm.com, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Is there anyone out there who is still undecided on the question of how
> best to handle namespace names?

Yes, me.  And I need a decision (and I need to know what it is,
and I need to know that it's final...)
 
> OF THOSE, is there anyone who feels that further discussion will help them
> decide?

It might.  In particular, the idea of "two kinds of namespace names"
was NOT discussed to death on xml-core-wg and xml-plenary.  To restate:

1) A namespace name that looks like an absolute URI, possibly with appended
fragment-identifier, is what it looks like.

2) Any other namespace name is not a URI reference.

3) Equality of namespace names is string equality.

An alternative version of 1:

1a) A namespace name that looks like a URI reference and contains either ':'
or '/' is what it looks like.

> IF NOT: Move to close debate. I think we've covered all the pros and cons
> in painful detail at this point, and have gotten to the point where we
> aren't likely to change any minds by discussing it further.

I hope you are wrong, because that means that consensus decision
making has failed.
 
-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Monday, 22 May 2000 13:59:12 UTC

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