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

Re: more QName madness

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: more QName madness
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:41:36 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200211180246.VAA11461@m...>

jcowan@r... (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

• References:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Previous by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Next by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread