Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 12:51, Paul Prescod wrote: > It is the Web Architecture. > > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html > > You can argue that it should not be. But it is. I keep running into the "Web Architecture" being what it is. I've yet to find out what the criteria for changing the Web Architecture might be, or any sign that arguing against these (IMHO, weak) foundations has any hope of success. However much everyone argues, URIs remain the same unchanging black hole. I see a lot of people heading off to their own corner to build systems which use URIs (or ignore them in favor of QNames) however they see fit - and less and less chance of making the systems share a common understanding. The W3C TAG at least shows some strong signs of interest in keeping things brought to them coherent. I'll be curious to see how they interact with the black hole of URIs over time. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
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