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

Re: A little courtesy, please

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:48:04 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200005231548.QAA19836@nag.co.uk>
To: asgilman@iamdigex.net
CC: xml-uri@w3.org

> How may I, without violating civility, indicate that this is not
> universally regarded as an unmixed blessing?  Actually, Simon's approach is
> clean in this regard because the actual damage is when namespaced names are
> used to control styling directly off the syntactic analysis, with a
> guaranteed non-dependence on any sort of schema backing up the names in the
> namespace.  This is likely to adversely affect the disability interest.
> The architecture should, to the best advantage of the disability interest,
> direct styling to the "highest available infoset" for its input, and not
> hardwire it to the lower-layer outcome of syntactic processing alone.

Sorry, you lost me, could you expand that.

I _think_ that you are saying that you would have prefered the namespace
rec to have mandated the existence of (something) as a retrievable
resource located at the namespace URI.

I am sure that that much of a change is too much of a change to be
considered, but forgetting that for a moment, I am interested in
why you say that this would be better for disability interest.

I more or less understand the last sentence quoted above as saying that
you need flexibility in styling possibilities, but I am missing
something that you have in mind as I don't see any connection between
that and whether there is a retrievable resource at the namespace URI.

Confused

David
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 11:48:53 UTC

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