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

Re: A little courtesy, please

From: W. E. Perry <wperry@fiduciary.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:49:59 -0400
Message-ID: <392A7E77.730D8D3@fiduciary.com>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, xml-uri@w3.org
Well said, Simon. At this point I think that it is incumbent upon those
proposing any *change* in namespace names processing (a group which I do not
believe includes Simon, as I read his 'status quo' proposal) to catalogue those
resources which they allege have evidentiary or other determinative standing
for their arguments. XML 1.0 is presumably a given, as is the Namespaces in XML
Recommendation. Beyond that, could we have an enumeration of (and pointers to)
documents supporting arguments for change?

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:

> This is, at least in theory, a discussion of allowable XML syntax, not RDF.
> I've seen no evidence that RDF processors are incapable of handling
> absolutizing within their own layer of processing.

[snip]

> This isn't a discussion of religion or morals, or at least didn't claim to
> be.
>
> While I'm glad to have been able to participate in the discussion, I'm
> really left wondering why this issue moved onto a public list when the 'Web
> architecture' that appears to be motivating it is under wraps, apparently
> unquestionable.
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 08:50:02 UTC

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