[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: URI concerns continue

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w...>, XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:51:44 -0400

At 10:39 AM 7/11/00 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
>XML chose to allow the use of URIs so that those who need
>particular functions of sub-parts of the namespace can use
>them. If those function do not meet your needs then
>engineer a new namespace that does and use that one....

If I had control over the namespaces I plan to use, I'd be happy to do that.

(In fact, I plan to use OIDs in the future, and I'm happy to have
Enterprise Number 6320.)

However, since I need to use namespaces created by organization beyond my
control - notably the XLink, XML Schemas, default XML, SVG, and XHTML
namespaces from the W3C - that doesn't solve the problem neatly.

On top of that, I have no means of controlling where my documents end up.
If they need to be processed by some tool that expects schemas to be
retrievable via the URI of the namespace - because "that's the way the W3C
does it" - I'll be screwed for using OIDs.  Not by the namespaces
specification directly, but because an apparently unregulated process at
the W3C went ahead and put schemas as entity bodies for namespace URIs.
Namespaces in XML doesn't prohibit such behavior, though I wish it did.

Seems pretty ugly to me, at best.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• References:
  • RE: URI concerns continue
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Microsoft's DISCO proposal and XML packaging
• Next by Date: Re: URI concerns continue
• Previous by thread: Re: Granularity
• Next by thread: RE: URI concerns continue
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread