Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "XML List" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:47:47 -0400
At 11:35 AM 5/17/99 +0200, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
>We are agreed on that as well. The question is, what is the best way to
>ensure this? We have several alternatives:
>1. Leave 'behavior' unspecified and rely on people's common sense.
>2. Make it a requirement that values to 'behavior' must be URIs.
>3. Use XML namespace mechanism instead to qualify the attribute name,
>instead of its values.
>The spec now uses option (1), which I think is unsatisfactory. Let us at
>least have an editorial note recommending URI values! Paul (I presume) and
>myself would rather have option (3), as being more in tune with other XML
>standards (namespaces). But (2) also gets the job done. Given that (2)
>requires a very minor change to the spec as it stands (just adding a
>sentence or two), I guess it is the most practical one. If that's what it
>takes to get the spec out the door, so be it.
How much more weight should we really be putting on URIs? We're going to
need to be issuing directories of URIs and their meanings in different
(Web, namespaces, now XLink) context if this keeps up. I realize that
they're about the only mechanism for which large-scale unique registration
is currently available, but wow, this could be genuinely ugly in a few
years (even months!).
XML: A Primer / Building XML Applications (June)
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)