URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
Len Bullard wrote: > If you believe that, then you haven't been paying > attention. This issue is the black hole of WWW > architecture. Hey, for once I get to agree with Len! At this point, I start to doubt the value of specifications when they use URIs rather than URLs. The Identification/Location mess has been swirling for years, despite the claims of those on the Identification that everything's just dandy. Namespaces are probably the worst place where this pollyanna attitude has smacked XML, but their progeny, QNames, offer their own set of problems. URI usage is a serious red flag on specs for me, one of the first signs I use to figure out where something is amiss. The philosophy behind URIs seems designed to ward off questions rather than promote interoperability, which strikes me very strange for a technology reportedly intended to be at the heart of Web infrastructure. If the W3C wants to sort out Web architecture, a cold hard look at URIs would be the first target I'd recommend. That seems pretty unlikely overall, since URI supporters generally refuse to acknowledge that problems beyond misunderstandings exist at all. God knows I'm tired of talking about this stuff, but it never seems likely to be resolved. -- 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