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

Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:14 -0400
Message-Id: <200005301433.KAA18710@hesketh.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC