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

Re: Just say 'mu' to namespace URIs (was Re: XML1.1

• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Just say 'mu' to namespace URIs (was Re: XML1.1 grinds to halt?)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 14:21:19 -0400
• In-reply-to: <9B9A5456AFE99E4181416B252F63BDA208631501@r...>
• References: <9B9A5456AFE99E4181416B252F63BDA208631501@r...>
• User-agent: Opera7.10/Win32 M2 build 2840

On Mon, 5 May 2003 10:43:02 -0700, Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...> 
wrote:

> Regarding the statement that "... the 'unenlightened' but influential
> folks in Redmond WA ... are voting with their feet for URNs ..."
>
> I am always happy to become more enlightened. With that in mind, I have
> two questions:

The 'unenlightened' bit should have had some sort of emoticon. (Recall the 
attempt at a joke about Zen running through the post!)  I was under the 
impression that MS was taking the lead in pragmatically treating namespace 
names as URN identifiers and avoiding the disputes among the gurus about 
all this. So, if the "enlightened" folks are those who can follow all the 
discussion about the use of "#" in URIs irrespective of concrete 
representations and the ways of distinguishing the RDDL description of a 
resource from the URI of a RDDL document itself, then "unenlightened" 
people just use a URN and get on with life.  It was *not* a slur!

>
> 1.	I am not aware of this trend.  What evidence has led you to this
> conclusion?  Is there any contrary evidence?

I think the responses disabused me of that opinion.  I was referring to the 
heavy use of URNs in early versions of the Office 11 beta and to the Draft 
US Gov't XML guidelines (I don't have the reference handy, but Paul Cotton 
brought it to the TAG's attention).  I have been informed that there is a 
movement toward HTTP URIs as namespaces as Office 11 has evolved (perhaps 
because there is useful information at the end of those URIs), and pushback 
on the US gov't XML guidelines.

I do however agree with Dare that the "rank and file" would be much happier 
overall if the "identity" and "address of additional information" aspects 
of namespaces were separated, and with Norm that the derefereneability of 
namespace URIs is a morass that we should just stay away from.

>
> 2.	A brief perusal of this thread has not led me to a simple, clear
> explanation of what the issue under discussion is

This thread is an example of why one should simply beat one's head against 
the wall when the XML world gets frustrating (or get a life, of course) and 
avoid posting to xml-dev with unproductive rants! If I haven't apologized 
for that before now, I'm doing it now.  I was just noting  the third 
anniversary (more or less) of the focus on sorting out URIs and how they 
should be used within the W3C (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml- 
uri/2000May/0000.html), and the apparent fact (noted on the TAG public 
list) that XML itself has been dragged into the morass and brought to a 
halt.  There was no simple clear explanation, just a primal scream that we 
can't get past this mess.  

• References:
  • RE: Just say 'mu' to namespace URIs (was Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?)
    • From: "Andrew Layman" <andrewl@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Just say 'mu' to namespace URIs
• Next by Date: Re: Just say 'mu' to namespace URIs
• Previous by thread: RE: Just say 'mu' to namespace URIs (was Re: XML 1.1 grinds to halt?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread