Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tom Harding writes: > David Megginson wrote: > > > As I wrote before, it doesn't much matter whether we use Java property > > names incorporating domain names (like > > 'org.xml.sax.features.validation') or URIs (like > > 'http://xml.org/sax/features/validation'), as long as we have the > > ability for people to create new names without fear of collision. > > I would also urge against using an http: URI since it is not meant > that a resource actually be retrieved using the http protocol. I've been thinking about this issue, and I'm fairly convinced that the URI is the right choice. Think of the URI a statement of ownership. Assume that my ISP is host.net, and that I've been allocated 5MB of web space at http://host.net/foo/. I am the only one who has the right to make a resource available at http://host.net/foo/, so I am the one who has the (moral) right to construct feature IDs based on http://host.net/foo/. It is not sufficient simply to use the domain name "host.net", because I don't own the domain (someone else could construct the same feature ID), and it is not sufficient to use something starting with net.host.foo, because I *don't* have the right to make something available at, say, ftp://host.net/foo/ -- host.net has made the foo available to me only through the HTTP protocol. Perhaps Foo enterprises has a download directory at ftp://host.net/foo/, and they might want to construct their own property ID based on it. Namespaces seems to have got it right. All the best, David -- David Megginson david@m... http://www.megginson.com/ xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... 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@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
