- From: W. E. Perry <wperry@fiduciary.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:49:59 -0400
- 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