[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]


Mike Champion <mc@x...> wrote:

| Bray: I remain convinced that URNs are almost always a bad idea for XML 
| namespaces.
|
| TimBL: because either they're not resolvable or you're reinventing HTTP.
| 
| TimBL's right, of course,

I don't see how.  Why must a resolution mechanism (never mind why and for
what) necessarily be something HTTP-like?  Or is this a philosophical
statement that any lookup involving a network connection either uses or
reinvents gopher^WHTTP? 

| but: a) there's still no consensus on what dereferencing a namespace URI 
| should produce; 

I'm now hopelessly lost in the twists and turns of URI metaphysics.  Why
is a URI necessarily "dereferenceable"?

| c) the 'unenlightened' but influential folks in Redmond WA and Washington 
| DC are voting with their feet for URNs and this debate is likely to become 
| moot Real Soon Now; 

King Canute has always been a role model at the W3C. 


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member