Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: URI concerns continue
 No contest. If the superstition becomes reliable practice, it is no longer a superstition. It seems to me that proposals changed along the way. I had the namespace discussion with David Megginson when they were proposed and I was assured and others were assured repeatedly that the use of the URwhich string was specifically and only to have a disambiguating prefix. At that time, I stated that the users would trust their own experience that any string beginning with http:// would be marshalled, made blue, underlined, and become clickable just as the one I just typed did. It won't resolve (incomplete), but it will click. Given that, they would have a hard time with any other expectations. So far, that is about right. Remember folks, most users can't and don't read RFCs to discover implementation minutiae. They simply trust the system they use every day and blame the vendor if things aren't as expected. We are the loosely coupled control between them and frustration. The thread on FPIs is not meant to change the design but to point out that the use of these in a DOCTYPE along with the system identifier is clear and the expected behavior is clear. That there is not a 100% guarantee for any resolution service is beside the point because the contract can state the probability and we do that every day in other contracts for things such as system performance, eg, time to return on a specific transaction. At the very least, I can name something without fear of it being made blue, underlined, and become clickable. So it appears at this time that the user of the FPI and system identifier has a clearer contract and the FPI comes closer to describing a workable namespace. The problem is that guaranteeing persistence and global uniqueness has to be made in systemic terms and FPIs have no system to guarantee that whereas URIs do (DNS). I am having a hard time working out what the user of the URI namespace can expect. So far, they are clearly able to disambiguate names in aggregate instances. Yes it is complicated. One has to wonder about all the hype on B2B, B2C, etc. in a system that doesn't seem to provide clear contracts for behaviors. This thread is at least educating me as to the thinking if not the clarity of agreement. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] The 'superstition' is much more broadly understood (and used) than the purported fact. Common URL usage has bred a widely shared set of assumptions in communities which frequently lack any interest in URI philosophy. I'm not convinced that the understanding of strings beginning with things like http, ftp, mailto, file, and other commonly encountered strings known to identify retrieval protocols in URLs is 'wrong', whatever RFC2396 may claim. It certainly complicates matters, however. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
