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

Re: URI concerns continue

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:10:58 -0400

At 03:20 PM 7/11/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>> Yes.  So far I understand but am not sure how this was
>> better than FPIs plus system IDs.  Had we removed the
>> coincidental protocol/namesystem morphs, we would have
>> exactly the same systems, yes?
>
>Yes, but the existence of a standardized name resolution system,
>even if it doesn't do the whole job, is still tremendous leverage:
>it makes simple cases simple, even if difficult cases are no better
>than before.  Much like XML vis-a-vis full SGML.

Are URIs a 'standardized name resolution system'?  

It sure doesn't feel like it to me.  At best, it seems to be a syntax with
a deliberately vague description of what that syntax should be used to
identify.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• References:
  • RE: URI concerns continue
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URI concerns continue
• Next by Date: RE: URI concerns continue
• Previous by thread: RE: URI concerns continue
• Next by thread: RE: URI concerns continue
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread