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

Namespace related-resource bundles: just the one?

• From: Miles Sabin <MSabin@i...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 16:17:17 +0000

I might be missing something, but as far as I can see all three
[1] of the current proposals share the following characteristic: 
they all tie a namespace identifier to a _single_ bundle of 
related resources which are under the control of whoever it is 
who has administrative control over the namespace URI. I can 
envisage circumstances where this sort of centralized control 
would be desirable, but, equally, I can envisage circumstances 
where it wouldn't.

As a consequence it looks as though we wouldn't be able to take 
an _existing_ document instance (which already references a 
resource bundle via it's namespace URI) and, for example, 
associate it with a different XML or RDF schema without 
negotiating with the controllers of the existing bundle URI.

Admittedly we could create a new namespace (using a URI which we 
control as its identifier) and define a trivial transform from 
the original document onto a new one using vocabulary drawn from 
our new namespace. Alternatively, I can imagine XML processors 
providing various (implementation defined?) mechanisms for 
overriding the association. Neither of these options strike me as
particularly satisfactory however.

What do people think? Is this a problem? If it is, how could the 
existing proposals be revised to avoid it?

Cheers,


Miles

[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200012/msg00749.html
    http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200101/msg00005.html
    http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200101/msg00012.html

-- 
Miles Sabin                               InterX
Internet Systems Architect                5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                       London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@i...                         http://www.interx.com/

• Prev by Date: Re: XNRL
• Next by Date: Re: Dereferencing Namespace URIs considered harmful
• Previous by thread: Plan A + Plan B = Plan C?
• Next by thread: Re: Namespace related-resource bundles: just the one?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread