[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jcowan@reutershealth.com (John Cowan) writes:
>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.
I'm not concerned with whether it's experimental - I'm only concerned
with avoiding naming conflicts for the presently nonexistent
"idiosyncratic" schemes about whose future you seem worried.
>> 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.
>
>Granted.
>
>> 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.
Good.
>> 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.
Then we'll need to see what happens between now and Recommendation, if
in fact there is a Recommendation.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
