xml-dev - Re: Irony heaped on irony

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 10:05 AM 5/18/00 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>This is my 'fault', I guess, although it seems to me it's a problem
>with the browsers you mention in the first instance.

[...browser issues]

>I could move the schema, but that would break lots of _other_
>schemas, including the schema for schemas, which depend on it.
>
>Seems to me having something of mime type text/xml at the namespace
>URI for XML is not something we should have to apologise for.

But it does seem that such a sweeping change in namespaces best practices
is worth an explanation or preferably a full-blown trip through the W3C
process, complete with working drafts.

We've spent over a year on XML-Dev and elsewhere explaining to the world
that Namespace URIs are just identifiers, battled over the three/one
namespaces for XHTML issue, and now it seems that namespaces are indeed
supposed to point to schemas.  (And packaging?  Is that gone?)

Maybe the xml-uri list is the place to bring up such questions, though it
seems obsessed with relative URIs.



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

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************