[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Begging the Question

• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• To: Martin Gudgin <marting@d...>
• Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:39:17 -0700 (MST)

> > > Most of the unfulfilling argument surrounding it springs from the
> > > assumption that, since namespace names *look* like URLs, they should
> *act*
> > > like URLs -- that is, that one should be able to to point a Web Browser
> > > at them and retrieve something useful since they look like something one
> > > might point a Web Browser at.  This assumption, while not unreasonable,
> > > is explicitly disclaimed by the namespaces spec.
> >
> > Really?  Where?
>
> Section 2[1] says:
>
> 'The namespace name, to serve its intended purpose, should have the
> characteristics of uniqueness and persistence. It is not a goal that it be
> directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists).'

I had gathered that Joe meant something stronger.  Certainly this passage
doesn't bar Web Browser access.  Maybe as Jonathaan Borden suggests I'm
just being too nit-picky in this discussion.

> I note from this that it only mentions retrieval of schemata but maybe it is
> reasonable to extend the meaning of the statement to cover all resource
> types.

I think we need stronger than "reasonable".


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@f...               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python

• Prev by Date: Re: Thats me with my paranoya. Really - the last one. Re: Begging theQuestion
• Next by Date: Re: Begging the Question
• Previous by thread: Re: Begging the Question
• Next by thread: Re: Begging the Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread