- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:14 -0400
- To: <xml-uri@w3.org>
At 10:12 AM 5/30/00 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >I think that while we may try to reduce the damage in the result we settle >on, >whatever the outcome, the NS spec needs an explanation as a minimum so that >this same discussion isn't repeated every few years. In other words, a new >version of the spec. As long as that new version is a 2.0, not merely an addendum to the existing spec, that sounds reasonable. (Yes, I have large ugly concerns about how to indicate versioning for namespace specs, but that's a separate issue.) >>2) If changes to that status quo are needed, the W3C should start a new >>working group devoted to namespace issues, which uses this mailing list as >>a public forum for reviewing comments. That working group can issue >>'Namespaces in XML 2.0' in whatever form it finds appropriate, with >>concessions (or not) to backward compatibility. > >We have to find ways of making a process which has a form of public >accountability, and also works in finite time and can make intitutional >commitments to other parts of web development. That sounds good. >[...addressed in separate message...] >But for now we need a solution to this so that the DOM can move forward. > >The fact that relative URIs are terated diferently by different groups >already clearly means that they should be warned against as a minimum. > >Then, when you don't use then, URI comparison and string comparison are the >same - something we can take advantage of by allowing XML software at the >lower laters to be simple in its comparisons, but allowing the full richness >to the upper layers. > >This seems to me the only way this can go. We have made many attempts to >make complex compromises and wacky alternatives, but I think we come back to >the basic options considered >by the xml-plenary as the options. I don't think this is a time for >compromise. The NS spec in adopting compromise wording (bits to please each >camp) left open the mess we are in now. >I think we have to be clear. I'm not exactly sure where you've ended up here. Are you proposed warning language that would ban relative URIs? Followed by/not followed by revision to the spec? Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 10:33:30 UTC