Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The domain/URI match guaranteed string uniqueness in the context of the Internet. It is a convenient solution. The URI is meaningless in the spec, but in common use, it's an address with a protocol morph. One could debate which of these is more artificial but common practice and common sense have shown the spec to be the more artificial of the definitions. It's a locator. It's like having a dictionary that says "means this" but the humans "mean that" and over time, the dictionary becomes a relic. Appeal to the spec begs the case. System constraints are making way into the information The hidden properties belong to the implementation yet cannot be disposed of without explicitly putting them in the document. It is a common problem in large relational systems too. I don't know if it is completely possible to create a large system where this doesn't happen. The big issue is what a URI means with regards to the ownership of the definition of the information it identifies. That comes back to the original thread topic where yes (despite claims to the contrary), the URI may be the assertion of the Copyright that sticks (hostile assertion of domain). Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...] > If it > turns blue and is clickable, it's a control, > not an identifier. > > Of course, hidden in a structure where I > can't click on it, it can be whatever that > structure allows. Proving my point. Interpret in the context of whatever strange XML tool you're talking about, it turns into a control. But in the context of, say, XML specs, there is no such ability to click. It's that tool which has interpreted the URI, in this case incorrectly as a link. There's no intrinsic meaning to any identifier.
|
