• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 17:14:35 +0100 (BST)
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.20020802222011.014304d8@p...>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

In article <4.2.0.58.20020802222011.014304d8@p...> you write:

>I was proposing last week that all namespace URIs must be URLs resolving to 
>porn sites, so maybe that's already starting to happen.  (Think of the 
>revenue possibilities for XML developers... no, don't.)

There's no point making them point to porn sites, since programs don't
usually have credit card numbers.  The obvious revenue mechanism is
to point them at pay-per-click ad gifs.  People have actually used my
XML checker for this purpose.

-- Richard

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: Re: relying on ordering of sibling XML elements
• 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