Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What public ID? --- Seairth Jacobs seairth@s... SDML/GTP: http://www.seairth.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> To: "'Seairth Jacobs'" <seairth@s...>; "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:07 PM Subject: RE: Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs) > Just use the public ID. > > len > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@s...] > > Okay. Once again, the issue of whether a URL used as a Namespace URI should > be resolvable or not has come up. The main confusion here is that the URI > given looks like a resolvable URL. Most people would look at it and expect > it to be able to resolve the URL to some sort of related document. As shown > with the govtalk URL though, this is not always the case. But, I can > understand the reasoning behind the use of the URL format. It is a > convenient and quick way to create a URI that is easy to remember and/or > understand (I still don't understand URNs). > > However, as soon as the "http" scheme is mentioned, people start to assume > it is a resolvable URL. So how about this... 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. > >
|
