[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If he says that is "easily integratible" based
on that draft, it is inconsistent. The holes
are there and you will be spit out in 1989.
This would have been much simpler if the
namespace rec has said informatively that
namespace URIs were intended to be dereferenceable.
It was obvious; it was noted; it was refuted
and now it is becoming fact. I don't mind
because it makes sense as long as one understands
that this is an index and a control put into
the content of the namespace. It is only
rattling because the history of the XML
crew seems to be one of asking others
to look the other way while the knife
changes hands. That is not exactly a
web of trust.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
7/18/2002 10:08:40 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
>Sounds good in theory and in the REC, but the
>insistence that URIs be dereferenceable makes
>it inconsistent in practice.
>
[feeling the pull of this black hole ......]
The W3C might say, someday, as a matter of overall Web policy,
that namespace URIs should be dereferenceable. XML doesn't say that,
the namespace rec doesn't say that, and James Clark isn't saying that.
Likewise Tim Bray, wearing one of his many hats, helped write the RDDL spec
to faciliate namespace URI dereferencing. Wearing another hat,
he drafted the skunkworks spec. Even if *he* believes that there *should* be
a linkage between the namespace syntax and the web semantics, that doesn't
mean that there is one by definition, or that James Clark is inconsistent.
[hoping that the black hole will spit me out in a region of spacetime where
this stuff has been sorted out, or where it had never been invented :~) ]
|
