Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jandia Cyril wrote:
> Tim Bray wrote:
> > Subject : [xml-dev] 14 Theses around "Namespace Documents"
> > I have just posted some arguments about namespaces and
> > namespace documents as a contribution to TAG debate - I
> > suspect many here will be interested. See
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Feb/0093.html
> > -Tim
> So I am talking about kind of "self-describing URIs" when they are serving
> the purpose of namespace identification and whether there exists an
> *explicitly* coupled (or not) namespace document.
> E.g, explicitation to be done "later" in the URI, maybe in the [rfc2396]'s
> <path> generic syntax construct? Or <query> part maybe?
Excuse me, all:
after re-reading both RFC2396 (again and again) and my own comment to Tim's
theses, and re-ordering my thoughts vs. Tim's, I could certainly put simpler
(humble opinion, no "argument by assertion", Tim ;o) :
1) RFC2396 *does* address the class of "namespace URIs" : according to it,
there are URIs of "abstract resources" -namely, "namespaces" (even without
talking about NS documents, yet) - do they?
2) *but*, I think there is another, orthogonal, dimension pertaining to the
"namespace URIs" concept : the fact that their "canonical" form of
identification (as URIs) precisely aims ... the very specific purpose of ...
naming other things (!)
3) so that, IMO, maybe we need sth like of an escaping mechanism to have
"namespace URIs" seen as "meta-URIs" for other URIs ... see?
4) then, given 1+2+3, I think (wrong?) that RFC2396 simply *is not*
sufficient in current form : an hypotetical "RFC2396-NS" would add specific
construct(s) to RFC2396 to handle this "URI as namespace id" in its generic
Does it make sense?