[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: URIs harmful

• To: <m.spork@q...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: URIs harmful
• From: "Jimmy Cerra" <jc2astro@h...>
• Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:48:15 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3D3F4D9D.1000703@q...>
• Organization: University of Pittsburgh, CCAC
• Reply-to: <jc2astro@h...>

> I'm still trying to figure out /why/ you would even want to (use the
> HTTP scheme for things which you don't intend to be dereferenced).
> Whether it's harmful or not - has anyone actually given a reason for
> wanting to do this?

You shouldn't (opinion alert).  A URN would probably work better? On the
Other hand the "name-like authority" for URLs is well established (unlike
the authority for URNs) and it is a de-facto standard as well as an official
one.

URLs could also provide an absolute address (just like a street address for
a person or a Library of Congress Number for a book) for an abstract
resource (ie: the schema for a document).  Sort of like the North Pole; you
don't intend to go there, but you use it as a base resource from which other
resources (locations on a map in this case) are mapped from.

Does that make sence?

--
Jimmy Cerra
jfcst24@s...


============================================
"my mind is slipping away...
                   ...day by glorious day"
Robin Gorkin
============================================

• References:
  • Re: URIs harmful
    • From: Murray Spork <m.spork@q...>

• Prev by Date: RE: URIs harmful
• Next by Date: RE: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by thread: RE: URIs harmful
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread