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

Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)

• To: jgreif@a... (Jeff Greif)
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <024201c23a70$c2701a30$6400a8c0@JMG> from "Jeff Greif" at Aug 02, 2002 03:05:49 PM

Jeff Greif scripsit:
> 
> If the URI is meant to be dereferenced, the 'rule' is given force by means
> of the inability of anyone but microsoft.com to control the representation
> that will be returned.  If the URI is not supposed to be dereferenced, then
> the rule is just a convention, right?  Or am I missing something?

It is a convention, but it is the convention that underpins the choice of
URIs as namespace names.  The Java package name convention uses the same
concept: don't allocate a package that you don't (by the rules) control.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        jcowan@r...
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Programming for Markup vs. Markup for Programming
• Next by Date: [ANN]: Software to convert Relational Databases to XML documents
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread