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

Re: Comparable considered necessary

• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:19:13 -0700
• Cc: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@b...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621F16@r...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> XML namespaces is the only place I've seen URIs used significantly can you provide any others? Anyway, I decided to give one more shot at explaining my dislike of the whole URIs/URLs mess before bowing out. Here are some analogies 
>  
> URN: Microsoft  
> URL: One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 
> URI:  Either of the above. 
> Resource: The Microsoft Corporation
>  
> The above is an illustration of why I like URLs and like URNs but despise URIs. 

Er by URL do you mean HTTP URI or are you prepared to grant news: and 
mid: and some other schemes?

I agree on liking URLs.  With every year that passes I become less 
convinced that URNs are a good idea.  John Cowan provided a bunch of 
examples on this list earlier (ISBNs, Usenet, etc) of places where the 
identifying string does not, unlike http, imply a retrieval mechanism 
but is still useful.

Personally, all the URIs I care about are HTTP URLs.  Calling a URL a 
URI has never caused me a problem. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by Date: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Previous by thread: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by thread: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread