xml-dev - Re: Begging the Question

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

Martin, 

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. 

Rgds.Paul.
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
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 <marting@develop.com>
To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>; Joe English <jenglish@flightlab.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.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
> *act*
> > > 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[1] 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
> types.
> 
> Whether this is the 'explicit disclaimer' that Jonathan meant only he can
> confirm or deny.
> 
> Martin Gudgin
> DevelopMentor
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#ns-decl