Re: xmlmd:foo

At 12:41 PM 5/30/00 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
>> I like it very much, but I'm concerned that URI-related issues identical to
>> the ones we've been discussing here will crop up in xmlmd:foo work.
>I don't think so, because we agree at the beginning that the URI isn't just a
>name; it locates something.

That's where I start to get nervous that the URI community might not be so
happy about this approach.  Claims like 'but URNs are dereferenceable'
could cause some continuing controversy here.

I'd be happy to see this happen, though, basically as you've outlined it
here.  (It seems to be in sync with similar proposals made earlier.)

>> Addressing these issues seems like an important part of any 'next step'
>> toward closing this discussion - I'm really hoping that this plan doesn't
>> lead us back into the same thicket.
>I think that's less likely, because we now know the thicket is there and
>the worst brambles are, from our traumatic experience with the namespace name

Oh, I hope so.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth

Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2000 13:00:10 UTC