On Tue, 03 Jul 2001, you wrote:
> At 07:35 2-07-2001, Peter Flynn wrote:
> ><!NOTATION PDF PUBLIC
> > "-//Adobe//NOTATION Portable Document Format//EN"
> > "http://www.adobe.com/pdf/somespec.doc">
> I feel compelled to note that Peter has a very bad habit in constructing
> formal public identifiers (that -// stuff). The owner (the first part
> after -//, "Adobe" in this case) is the owner of the *identifier*, not the
> owner of the *entity*. When constructing a formal public identifier for
> someone else's stuff, use your own owner name; otherwise, you're polluting
> someone else's namespace.
As Adobe is not registered, I am merely making the claim on their
behalf that they probably own PDF :-) If they wish to guard
their namespace against "pollution", there merely have to cough
up their $90 to the GCA to become a registered Public Owner under
The same habit is demonstrated by the DocBook DTD, last time I
looked (unless Eve has been editing :-)
> For a more modern analogy, this is like defining an XML namespace in
> someone else's domain:
> <peter:about xmlns:peter="http://www.ucc.ie/namespaces/flynn-peter"/>
> This would be rude, at best, and actionable at worst.
I agree. But namespaces can't be registered with an authority
(yet? can they?) whereas my company is a registered ISO 9070
> For many graphics formats, Steve DeRose and David Durand's book _Making
> Hypermedia Work_ provides formal public identifiers in their book's ISBN
> namespace for free public use.
Which is even more misleading than trespassing on the putative
namespace of a company who obviously doesn't care anyway :-)
Cris is perfectly correct about the ownership of FPIs vs the
ownership of the entity. But in the absence of any formal stake
in the matter by companies who own the entities, I will continue
to guard their claim for them, and I'm very happy to relinquish
it to them at a suitable juncture :-)