Just require URLs

[Andrew Layman]

I would like to add my endorsement to W. Eliot Kimber's mail of
1999-06-01T021:53 titled "Re: Just require URLs" and which is apparently not
in the archives.  

I'd like to add a parenthetical comment that I believe supports the thrust
of his argument: Eliot wrote "If the true intent of the namespace mechanism
is that the URI *is* the namespace (in the sense defined above), then they
have to *disallow* resolution of the URI..." Of course, specifications are
not people, so do not have intent literally, but as one of the two editors
of the specification I can speak for my intent in the wording of the
specification:  The URI identifies the namespace. That is, the specification
very clearly does not require that a URI be resolvable, but neither does it
forbid resolution.  The URI is an identifier; what other characteristics it
may have are not part of the namespaces specification, including whether it
is resolvable directly or can be used as part of process that ultimately
resolves to a resource.

Best wishes,
Andrew Layman

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)