[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.
|

Cart



