• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:13:25 -0800

I've read the the thread, and (as usual) I have a suggestion that I'm sure
is going to strike people as coming wayyyy out in left field, but...

It seems that the basic problem is not what URIs point too, but that they
are being overloaded (points to a web page, identifies a namespace, points
to resource definition, etc, etc.)

Should URI's be extended to include intent? I realize this opens its own can
of worms, but I'm see worms already... maybe this can is more tractable. At
least an URI that is used outside of its intent could be clearly called evil
usage. URIs with multiple intents would have to be spelled out using the
same base URI identifier, redeclared for each intent.

Is that to far whacked out an idea? Perhaps my own intent is unclear...

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>
  • Re: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Next by Date: Re: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)
• Previous by thread: RE: Schematron/Schema market share
• Next by thread: Re: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread