Lists Home |
Date Index |
c) the 'unenlightened' but influential folks in Redmond WA and
Washington DC are voting with their feet for URNs
Regarding the folks in Washington DC (the recently released Namespace
guidelines for the federal government): I've recommended that this
document be updated to include a section on using URL's for namespace
identifiers, in addition to URN's. Besides the issue of some folks'
preference, there are probably quite a few existing cases of URL's being
used (might be messy to go back and change them all). Not sure what will
come of it, but hopefully this will be included in the next release of
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Mike Champion wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:56:01 -0700, Joe English <email@example.com>
> > Mu. We're talking about "Namespaces in XML"; namespace names
> > aren't URIs (or IRIs), they're opaque character strings which
> > are supposed to conform to the syntax of URIs (or IRIs).
> > The network is irrelevant.
> <rant permathread="true">
> For what very little it's worth, three years of this discussion has simply
> convinced me that in general namespace names should be URNs: like namespace
> names they're abstract identifiers, and AFAIK there are no issues about
> comparing them. Tim Bray and Berners-Lee argue against this in the most
> recent TAG IRC:
> 19:22:35 [DanC]
> Bray: I remain convinced that URNs are almost always a bad idea for XML
> 19:22:39 [DanC]
> Chris: because...?
> 19:22:56 [DanC]
> TimBL: because either they're not resolvable or you're reinventing HTTP.
> TimBL's right, of course, but: a) there's still no consensus on what
> dereferencing a namespace URI should produce; b) there is a very
> significant *conceptual* price people pay, and pay, and pay for getting
> mixed up by the different semantics of namespace names and URIs (such as
> internationalization/localization and comparison, just to name this week's
> hot potatoes); c) the 'unenlightened' but influential folks in Redmond WA
> and Washington DC are voting with their feet for URNs and this debate is
> likely to become moot Real Soon Now; and d) W3C could have "reinvented
> HTTP" to resolve URNs in a distributed, reliable manner several times over
> with the effort that has gone into this debate.
> Speaking only for myself, and I will now shut up and crawl back under my
> rock for another year or so until the permanentness of this permathread
> gets under my skin once again :-) I KNOW that there are good arguments
> against this rant, but it's just soooooooo frustrating to watch the W3C
> "grind to a halt" over this that I just can't think about them anymore.
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano