xml-dev - Re: Begging the Question

[Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>]

I was just replying to the question 'Really? Where?'

I was not making any statement about my own feelings on namespace names just
providing one *possible* location for answering the 'Really? Where?'
question. Having quickly read through the spec again it was the only area I
could see that *could* be the area of the spec to which Jonathan was
refering. Only Jonathan can provide the actual place in the spec he was
refering to. Please do not read more into my mail that it actually says.
Also please note the use of the weasel word 'maybe' :-)

For the record whenever I explain XML namespaces to people I repeatedly
state 'they don't necessarily refer to anything'. To be honest most people I
come into contact with seem to have far more trouble with the default
namespace decl than they do with the fact that namespaces names are URI
refs.

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Tchistopolskii" <paul@qub.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "Uche Ogbuji"
<uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>; "Joe English" <jenglish@flightlab.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Begging the Question


>
> 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
>