Lists Home |
Date Index |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
This letter brings us one year back.
> Doesn't this essentially say:
> 1. If you use http:// it is a URL. Period. In effect,
> there is no real difference between a URI and a URL
> that uses http. The expectations of the web gospel
> are different in the new testament.
If you use http:// it is a URL. It looks like URL -
it should be URL!
So in fact, from the beginning, namespaces should
not be using http:// prefix, because by design
namespaces were not URLs but just a hidden
unique properties, attached to each and
every tag. Writing it in form of http:// was a
mistake of W3C and RDDL speculates on that
mistake, playing it to the bone.
Abusing Namespace URI ( hidden,
semantic-neutral 'just be unique' property)
with any linking functionality is plain stupid and starts
influencing almost every existing XML tool, as RDDL shows.
( 'added support for RDDL to XSV') for the purposes
that are *unclear* to those who are 'maintaning'
the RDDL 'technology'.
RDDL is a plague. They're playing with the virus,
not understanding what they really do. The virus
should be placed under control of some solid
organization, like W3C, because it influences
each and every XML document and each and
every XML tool in the world. Yes, that's it.
W3C should step in and either crush or adopt RDDL
until it is too late.
> 2. The namespace specification should be rewritten
> to include the possibility of resolution of namespace
> identifiers and state that when http is there, expect
> it to be resolved, so require a document and suggest
> some examples of what might be expected, plus a default
> if none (eeeeee... better than 404?) so then RDDL might
> become a W3C spec and the default.
God forbid. Namespaces specification should
explicitely say that URLs should never be resolved
by any software in a sense other than being unique
hidden properties of every tag, until W3C specifies the
way those URIs / URLs should be resolved and
any software that makes any assumption that there
is some particular resource at the end of namespace
URI is a violation of XML specification.
To avoid confusion, W3C could change it's
Namespaceing naming policy and start writing
Namespaces URIs without the http:// prefix,
so that people will not try using these URIs.
However, because of legacy problems,
better solution could be that the namespaces URLs
would start pointing to some human-readable
documentation, related to the namespace, so that
people would see that when some namespace is
written as an URL it is reasonable to expect some
documentation at the end of that URL and *that
is the only purpose of that URL*.
No processing software should use Namespaces
URLs for fetching *any* data. Wanna fetch something
from the web? Use other technologies, don't abuse the
> I can't tell if this opens up a can of worms or
> if the fish aren't going bite.
The can stays opened for more than one year.
RDDL just made it worse.