Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
John Cowan wrote: > Tim Bray scripsit: >>I think if I ever decided to edit this thing again, I would include >>something along the lines of Amy's language, that namespace names are >>strings which follow the syntactic rules for URI references, > > It's been pointed out that this is not quite enough: the whole point of > using URIs (namely the ability to use multiple authorities) depends on > the (static) semantics of URIs, not just their syntax. It's a semantic > rule that says "Only microsoft.com can allocate URIs with a microsoft.com > authority part." I don't buy it. The system will self-correct; if I start publishing namespace names in microsoft.com or reutershealth.org space, the results in general and interoperability in particular will be poor, so I won't do that. In fact, the current claim that NSnames *be* URI refs doesn't give you what you want, right? -Tim
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