Just require URLs

[Paul Prescod]

Andrew Layman wrote:
> 
>....
> 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.  

I want to be clear on this.

Given the following definitions:

 * namespace processor: a tool that has no other purpose than to present
the data model implicit in the namespace specification to applications in
a legal manner

 * URI resource equality: a concept endorsed by the IETF in the future
that allows to URIs to point to the same logical object

 * URI equivalence: multiple URIs pointing to the same resource

Would it be legal, in your opinion, for a namespace processor to
substitute an equivalent URI for the supplied one in presenting the
namespace information to the application, just as it might substitute an
equivalent prefix?

In my opinion the answer to this question should be the same as the answer
to the "relative URI" question. I haven't heard a clear answer to that one
yet.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

[Woody Allen on Hollywood in "Annie Hall"]
Annie: "It's so clean down here."
Woody: "That's because they don't throw their garbage away. They make 
        it into television shows."



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)