[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Begging the Question
Martin, Either you are not reading the most important letters in this thread ( from Andrew ), or I've missed some important letter, or I'm not able to read ( I apologize if it is the case ). Earlier in this thread we've got a comment from the *author* of W3C specification you are citing on exactly this paragraph. I also suggest to re-read the letter from Andrew where he explains to me that all the XML books ( which are not that neutral, but are explicitly saying that "namespace URLs are not for actual resources" ) are *wrong* in explaining the namespaces. Really, I suggest re-reading the first messages in this thread, they are most important, I think. Rgds.Paul. ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@m...> To: <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 2:34 PM Subject: RE: simple question on namespaces. Last one. > The XML Namespaces specification says certain things and not others. It is > an improper use of the specification to cite it to mean things that it does > not say or that are in contradiction to what it does say. This holds > equally true whether one approves or disapproves of what it says. > 2. a. Retrieval of a document or other resource based on the URI > of the namespace is not "abuse" of the specification. The specification > states "It is not a goal that it be directly usable for retrieval of a > schema (if any exists)." Had it been the intention of the specification's > authors to prohibit retrieval of a resource, the wording would have said > that, instead. As it is, the specification is simply neutral on the matter > of whether retrieval is possible or not, desirable or not. ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Gudgin <marting@d...> To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>; Joe English <jenglish@f...> Cc: <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2000 2:39 AM Subject: Re: Begging the Question > > > Most of the unfulfilling argument surrounding it springs from the > > > assumption that, since namespace names *look* like URLs, they should > *act* > > > like URLs -- that is, that one should be able to to point a Web Browser > > > at them and retrieve something useful since they look like something one > > > might point a Web Browser at. This assumption, while not unreasonable, > > > is explicitly disclaimed by the namespaces spec. > > > > Really? Where? > > Section 2[1] says: > > 'The namespace name, to serve its intended purpose, should have the > characteristics of uniqueness and persistence. It is not a goal that it be > directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists).' > > I note from this that it only mentions retrieval of schemata but maybe it is > reasonable to extend the meaning of the statement to cover all resource > types. > > Whether this is the 'explicit disclaimer' that Jonathan meant only he can > confirm or deny. > > Martin Gudgin > DevelopMentor > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#ns-decl
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|