[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: tbray@t... (Tim Bray)
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:43:11 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: jenglish@f... (Joe English), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3D4AFA99.1050903@t...> from "Tim Bray" at Aug 02, 2002 02:33:13 PM

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."

-- 
John Cowan
        jcowan@r...
                I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: RE: Markup perspective not code (was RE: Re: URIs, concrete)
• 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