- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:29:05 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Jul 19, 2006, at 17:18, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Correct, but mnemonic qualities of a string intended for human use
>> can hardly be sufficiently stressed. As it currently stands, the
>> only thing that beats the nsuri policy as example of what not to
>> do here is UUID URNs.
>
> Hmm... I can think of a couple worse things:
> - having namespace URIs go 404
> - using the same namespace URI for two unrelated vocabularies
>
> The YYYY convention is mostly motivated by the latter concern,
> though perhaps the fact that there's already a namespace document
> that shows that a name is reserved is sufficient to address both
> concerns, and not just the former.
Agreed. I also don't think that the likelihood of two WGs inside W3C
requesting the same namespace within a few lifespans is extremely
likely and can't be handled.
>> I'm being dead serious when I say that having totally random years
>> in namespace URIs is the only thing I ever found genuinely
>> difficult with namespaces. If there had been a mnemonic assignment
>> system instead of a machine-oriented one I'm fairly certain that a
>> fair percentage of the complaints about namespaces would have
>> vanished.
>
> I wonder if you would be willing to serve as arbiter of the list of
> yearless namespace names.
> How would you decide when to give one out?
I'm not sure that I'm not missing something about your question here.
We already have a process for selecting shortnames in TR which seems
to me to be working quite well, and the current nsuri policy requires
the Director's approval for YYYY namespace names. Is there a problem
in applying the same policy for /ns/* names?
> I still have my reservations, but I'm getting the impression that
> this policy is going to change soonish.
> We're currently considering
> http://www.w3.org/ns/foo
> e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/ns/xbl
>
> If the random years issue is the main concern, I suppose that
> should suffice.
It would certainly make me a happy hobbit. I don't care much about
which variant is picked so long as it leads to mnemonic names.
> Issuing yearless URIs to replace existing namespace names also
> seems like more trouble than it's worth, to me, but who knows...
> the future is longer than the past, and if people are willing to do
> all the hard work to work out a transition plan and get it reviewed
> using normal W3C process (last call, CR, etc.), perhaps that's not
> a bad thing.
Agreed, it should be left up to WGs to decide.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2006 13:29:13 UTC