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

RE: URI concerns continue

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: michaelm@n...
• Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:11:48 -0500

It appears we are saying the same thing.   
Please elaborate on the MID and CID examples 
so I can understand better where we differ.  There 
are too many systems out there to keep up.

The FPI never has any implication 
that a protocol identifier is included or 
that a means exists to resolve it.  System 
identifiers are specifically required to be 
resolvable.   Catalog systems were developed 
to make this possible where required using 
FPIs.  It was a level of indirection reasonable 
people felt worth having to enable contracts 
to specify a name for a record of authority 
without having to specify a location or imply 
a location.  There are issues with enabling a 
record of authority to belong to a family 
of records such that local variations can 
exist without having to insist on these 
being contractually different records.  
IOW, semantics are always local even where 
global agreements on some parts may exist.

We probably could have gone forward but the 
sudden inexplicable reversal that namespace identifiers 
might be resolvable made for a very confused 
community.  

Removing the protocol identifier might 
satisfy a requirement to make the name 
system independent.  Being able to use subparts 
or a name regardless of existence of a 
resource looks attractive but I'm not 
sure why an FPI can't satisfy that.  Removing 
the protocol identifier so it is clear that 
the name is a public name, not a system name 
might clarify the intent.  Is clarity worth 
the effort?

Btw, since you insisted on resorting 
to the tired "counter-productive, SGML-ish, bifurcation of
public vs system identifiers" insult disguised 
as argument, let me go ahead and call you the white spy so 
you can assume I am the black spy and 
we can get on with the dominance game.  

Everyone wants to rule the world. :-)

Len Bullard
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@b...]

If you were to consider the most common URI schemes you
would be correct. But URNs (as with the mid and cid shcmes)
this is not the case. URNs are specifically designed such that
they exist and are useful and useable regardless of whether
or not you use some lookup process to find something out
about them.

XML chose to allow the use of URIs so that those who need
particular functions of sub-parts of the namespace can use
them. If those function do not meet your needs then
engineer a new namespace that does and use that one....

• Prev by Date: Re: Different schemas....
• Next by Date: RE: power uses of XML vs. simple uses of XML
• Previous by thread: Re: URI concerns continue
• Next by thread: RE: URI concerns continue
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread