xml-dev - RE: schemas and namespaces

["David E. Cleary" <davec@progress.com>]

> It may be a red herring technically, but it seems to be a key
> driver behind
> the discussion - in particular regarding why relative namespace URIs might
> be useful.

But the driver should be "Do we break conforming documents by forbidding
relative URIs or do we fix the inconsistencies among specs?" I personally
don't like relative URIs in Namespaces, but I won't fobid their use unless
we do it in a way that doesn't break existing documents.

> >Since there is currently no specification as to what resides at
> the endpoint
> >of a NS URI, shouldn't it be up to the owner of that URI to
> decide what is
> >there?
>
> Yes, but the W3C is no ordinary owner of a URI - they're a body defining
> said specs, and it's clear from discussion that this is not an arbitrary
> "we can do what we like" decision.

Well, Dan certainly has his views about what applications should do with
Namespace URIs and has the abillity to implement those views on the W3 web
site. I think this is a good thing and I hope others would implement their
views so when packaging does kick off, there is real implementation
experience.

David Cleary
Progress Software



***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************