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

RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the questio

• To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jborden@a...>, <xml-dev@l...>, "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 08:19:41 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <015e01c23b47$556cddb0$0201a8c0@n...>

Hi Jonathan,

Jonathan said:
Well, duh!, of course this wouldn't be a good idea, and our fellow would
have a perfectly good right to be confused -- but surely you aren't
arguing
that some axiom is causing the confusion here, are you?

The bottom line is that the 'controller' of the resource needs to ensure
that representations of the resource do, in fact, convey information
about
the resource and not something else. So if the URI is a namespace name,
they
common sense dictates that the representation convey some information
about
the namespace.

Didier replies:
I agree on that. To be sure that the namespace is self documented, W3C
or the XML community should enforce that a URL is to be used as a
namespace reference. This URL is pointing to a document providing
information about the namespace. This is the first step toward
transparency and inter-operability. 

Cheers
Didier PH Martin

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by Date: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread