Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Doesn't this essentially say: 1. If you use http:// it is a URL. Period. In effect, there is no real difference between a URI and a URL that uses http. The expectations of the web gospel are different in the new testament. 2. The namespace specification should be rewritten to include the possibility of resolution of namespace identifiers and state that when http is there, expect it to be resolved, so require a document and suggest some examples of what might be expected, plus a default if none (eeeeee... better than 404?) so then RDDL might become a W3C spec and the default. I can't tell if this opens up a can of worms or if the fish aren't going bite. len -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] Fair enough. The convention _should be_ (IMHO) that URIs that have schemes associated with network protocols are resolvable using that protocol. So that best practice is to associate all "http:" URIs with some document for the reasons you describe above. ....the convention be that _something always_ be returned.
|
