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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] more QName madness

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Simon St.Laurent scripsit:

> 2) Name your scheme using a convention that isn't likely to produce
> naming conflicts.  Even the ugly x- convention warns that it's
> non-standard, effectively screaming "idiosyncratic".

The trouble with x- is that it doesn't stay experimental.  There are gobs
of documents running around with media-type application/x-zip and such,
that have never been updated to application/zip.

> It is extraordinarily obvious that the URI-based QName system imposes
> considerable overhead on any creating or processing XPointers which
> happen to use non-W3C schemes.  


> Is "is intended" just a suggestion?  Could be.

No, it means that that's what we intend the IETF to use, so it's a bit
more than a suggestion.  But it has no normative force whatsoever.

> Would that require the IETF to adopt the QName-based identification of
> schemes?  I don't see an easy way around accepting the framework
> document without accepting that.  

I agree, at least as to the *possibility* of QName-based schemes.

> >> People definitely need a means of identifying fragments within XML
> >> documents.  It is not at all clear that they should be looking to the
> >> W3C and its peculiar URI and QName biases for an answer.
> >
> >OTC, it is very clear that they should not.  Only an update RFC to RFC
> >2396 can do that job.  The W3C as such cannot be an IETF member,
> >because IETF members are individuals.
> That sounds to me like you are making a case for the W3C stepping aside
> completely in these matters, which seems unlikely, and I'm not quite
> sure why you're referencing RFC 2396 in this context. Are you proposing
> that an update to RFC 2396 should change the very foundations of
> fragment identifiers?  

No.  RFC 2396 defines the meaning of fragment identifiers in application/xml
and friends; specifically, it defines them as undefined.  An update will
be needed to change that, which will have to be accepted by the IETF
process, which will need to be initiated by some individuals.
The W3C as such has nothing to do with it.

John Cowan      jcowan@reutershealth.com        http://www.reutershealth.com
        "Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U."  --K.X.U.


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

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