OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: Begging the Question

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
  • To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:13:52 +0000

> > Deprecation of relative URIs in namespaces?
> Could you expand on that?

Certainly. After months of conversation on these topics, no real consensus
was reached at all. It never is: look at the discussions we are having now.
Namespace debates seem to be dead-ends for some reason, *because* after all
is said and done, no action is ever taken. What we need to do is set out a
list of points and come to some general agreement. Stuff like:-

     1. Namespaces are unique names - i.e. URIs
     2. Namespaces may, or may not be dereferenced

and so on; and when we have continuity of the most important and basic
details, then we can discuss the more important questions:-
1) What level of semantics could namespaces carry?
2) What level of semantics should namespaces carry?
3) What systems will find namespace dereferencing necessary
4) Is the dereferencing of namespaces a sound architectural principle (in
general/for the SW)
5) What other forms of namespace to semantics mapping are there?
The list could be endless. Then, once we have thrashed out *those*
questions, we can decide how to act upon them. Is this a good roadmap for
the future of namespace discussions on XML-DEV?

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS