• To: Seairth Jacobs <seairth@s...>
• Subject: Re: Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs)
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:36:04 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <002301c1c3b0$4201a8f0$6400a8c0@seairthlaptop>

Seairth Jacobs wrote:

> why don't we just come up with
> a new scheme to use instead of "http".  For instance, we could have "xmlns".
> Then, when seeing "xmlns://www.govtalk.gov.uk/CR/core" or preferably
> "xmlns://govtalk.gov.uk/CR/core", we would know that the URL is not
> resolvable (at least using HTTP). At the same time, organizations can
> continue to use the URL format for its conveniences.

I like this a lot.

-- Ron

• References:
  • Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs)
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Next by Date: RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Previous by thread: Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs)
• Next by thread: RE: Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread