• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs == the Web was: Re: quarantining namespaces
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:09:34 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3D586544.31E77763@p...>

> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> > 
> > > Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
> > > Proxy them, same as we do with news: URLs (which likewise have no
> > > locator-nature).
> > 
> > Two questions:
> > 
> > 1) There are no proxies for most URNs; can we bar them?
> 
> Just ignore other URNs. They are rare today because they are near
> useless toda. When/if the semantic web comes about they will become
> plentiful in proportion to their usefulness.

And what to do about folks (Microsoft and the IETF, two tough cases to
ignore) who encourage the use of URNs on a regular basis?

I'm happy to treat URLs and URIs.  I'm not happy with specifications
that let URNs appear anywhere a URI may appear without addressing the
complications that raises.

The classical view is still imposing real costs.
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • Re: URIs == the Web was: Re: quarantining namespaces
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Formulae and Patterns (again) (Was: Types (again))
• Next by Date: SQL 2k or XML?
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs == the Web was: Re: quarantining namespaces
• Next by thread: Duality was: Re: quarantining namespaces
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread