Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce
[Joe English] > > But I think I finally see where Len is going with this. > There is an algorithm for resolving URLs; *that* is what > makes them useful. When RDF and XMLNS play Humpty Dumpty > and insist that a URI means what they intend it to mean, > nothing more and nothing less, contrary to established > practice and common understanding, it diminishes the value > of URLs. > For some reason I have not had any problem with URIs as abstract identifiers myself, but it is obvious from all the questions and arguments on many lists that the "established practice" argument carries a lot of weight. So maybe unrestricted URIs for namespace identifiers should be regarded as a partially failed experiment. It would probably have been better if the W3C had said that, if you want to have a pure identifier that is not intended to give network access to a resource, then use the w3c-ndi: scheme ("W3C Non-dereferenceable Identifer") or some such, and to have issued an RFC that specified exactly those semantics. I suppose that too much would break if this were imposed now, but it could still be phased in as a strongly recommended practice. Or maybe there would still be a need to have namespaces point directly to RDDL documents. Ah, well. Cheers, Tom P
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