Re: Just require URLs
Hunter, David wrote: > >Actually, anyone can prove almost ANY theological point by quoting ><em>sections</em> of the bible, just like anyone can prove almost any URI >point by quoting <em>sections</em> of the RFCs. The competent [Christian] >theologist, however, knows the bible cover to cover, and how those distinct >sections fit in with the whole, just like the competent URI... um... >"discusser" knows all of the RFCs, and how each section fit in with the >whole. <aside>Which is why I've steered clear of the discussion. Whoops, I >just got involved...</aside> > ><apology>Sorry, I wasn't able to relate this to tea leaves. Or to other >religions, for that matter. <?wink?> </apology> > So this analogy ought be cut off quickly lest we forget that we don't hire theologists to design bridges in 20th century civilization. The real argument here is whether a URI with the scheme "http" or "ftp" ought be used to define an XML namespace. The argument has led to discussion of whether such URIs are intended to serve as unique names aside from their intended purpose to serve as resource locators. The argument is twofold: First, using a particular definition of "resource", a name can be termed a locator for the "abstract resource" which is itself the name (or perhaps namespace). A distinction is made between this use of the term "resource" and the more common use in locating a "physical" resource such as a document located on a network. Second, the definition of URI, includes the concepts of URIs used as persistent names (e.g. "URN") as well as URIs used as resource locators (URL). The argument has arisen about whether URLs ought be used as XML namespace URIs and in particular whether the same URI can be used as a URL in one place and a persistent name (I won't call this a URN due to conflicts with 2141) in another (this would be some future as yet unspecified specs which build upon XML namespaces). I argue that per the URI specification (RFC2396) I see no reason why URIs which begin with particular schemes (e.g. "http") can or ought not be used as a persistent name. Aside from my reading and interpretation of RFC 2396, support for this position is in the XSL specification itself which uses URIs belonging to the "http" scheme to define the "xsl" namespace. In prior posts, I;ve asked for specific practical current problems that are created by using such URIs. The bottom line in bridge building (as opposed to theological arguments) is the fact that the bridge stands up to its specified weight for its specified lifespan. Jonathan Borden http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net 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...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format