[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: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:53:28 -0500
• In-reply-to: <f5b7kfalitb.fsf@e...>

ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson) writes:
>Sorry to be dense, but I just don't see how having a scheme name
>registry will solve, or even ameliorate, the interoperable
>implementation of scheme semantics.  

I don't see XPointer QNames improving on that situation at all either,
while imposing rather astonishing verbosity costs.

>At the end of the day, all we
>have is natural language documentation to define scheme semantics, and
>the obvious place to put such documentation is at the scheme namespace
>URI.  

Given the amount of argument that has already taken place about what
namespace URIs mean or don't mean, I have to find that statement
completely astounding if not simply maddening, especially given the
"Core Principle 2" Tim Bray posted to www-tag about how we shouldn't
constrain URI schemes for any given usage of URIs.

Do URIs contribute anything in this case?  I don't believe they do.  It
seems to me that identifying the syntax and usage of fragment
identifiers is a task for application and vocabulary developers, not
something that should be imposed on every single fragment identifier
ever used that doesn't happen to be blessed by the W3C.

>Are you saying that scheme registration should _require_ scheme
>semantics documentation?

As I expect nearly all new scheme-registration to take place in the
context of MIME Media Type registrations, yes, I do.


-------------
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: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: RDDL/RDF - no RDF tax?
• Next by Date: The truth about standards...
• Previous by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Next by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread