Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <email@example.com>
- To: Martin Gudgin <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>, Joe English <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 03:09:56 -0800
Either you are not reading the most important
letters in this thread ( from Andrew ), or I've
missed some important letter, or I'm not able
to read ( I apologize if it is the case ).
Earlier in this thread we've got a comment from the *author*
of W3C specification you are citing on exactly this paragraph.
I also suggest to re-read the letter from Andrew where
he explains to me that all the XML books ( which are not
that neutral, but are explicitly saying that
"namespace URLs are not for actual resources" )
are *wrong* in explaining the namespaces.
Really, I suggest re-reading the first messages in this
thread, they are most important, I think.
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Layman <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: simple question on namespaces. Last one.
> The XML Namespaces specification says certain things and not others. It is
> an improper use of the specification to cite it to mean things that it does
> not say or that are in contradiction to what it does say. This holds
> equally true whether one approves or disapproves of what it says.
> 2. a. Retrieval of a document or other resource based on the URI
> of the namespace is not "abuse" of the specification. The specification
> states "It is not a goal that it be directly usable for retrieval of a
> schema (if any exists)." Had it been the intention of the specification's
> authors to prohibit retrieval of a resource, the wording would have said
> that, instead. As it is, the specification is simply neutral on the matter
> of whether retrieval is possible or not, desirable or not.
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Gudgin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>; Joe English <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: Begging the Question
> > > Most of the unfulfilling argument surrounding it springs from the
> > > assumption that, since namespace names *look* like URLs, they should
> > > like URLs -- that is, that one should be able to to point a Web Browser
> > > at them and retrieve something useful since they look like something one
> > > might point a Web Browser at. This assumption, while not unreasonable,
> > > is explicitly disclaimed by the namespaces spec.
> > Really? Where?
> Section 2 says:
> 'The namespace name, to serve its intended purpose, should have the
> characteristics of uniqueness and persistence. It is not a goal that it be
> directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists).'
> I note from this that it only mentions retrieval of schemata but maybe it is
> reasonable to extend the meaning of the statement to cover all resource
> Whether this is the 'explicit disclaimer' that Jonathan meant only he can
> confirm or deny.
> Martin Gudgin
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#ns-decl