[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: simple question on namespaces.
Can't say it irritates me particularly as the target audience will be 99% using http:// (that got highlighted, BTW) in a browser, they type in the string and get the intended page - for this 99% the protocol is redundant. Many people call 'telephones' 'phones', even though there are also 'headphones' and 'microphones' - do they need educating too? What could be fun though would be if my browser would first try http://www.ourwebsite.com and if that failed tried ftp://www.ourwebsite.com and so on, bringing up the appropriate tool if a match was found... > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:marting@d...] > Sent: 29 December 2000 23:51 > To: Jonathan Borden; Paul Tchistopolskii; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: simple question on namespaces. > > > <SNIP/> > > 4) a string of the form "http://foo.org/bar.txt#baz" is a URI reference > > 5) a string of the form "www.whatever.com/foo.bar" is NOT a URI > reference > <SNIP/> > > Does anyone else get irritated that the rest of the world seems to think > that 4 and 5 are the same? I see lots and lots of advertisements in > magazines and on television that have 'URLs' of the form www.ourwebsite.com with no preceding 'http://'. In fact I'm even more irritated now that Outlook Express has highlighted the www. as if it were a link... It seems to me that only a small number of people in the world think that 4 and 5 are different. Perhaps more education is necessary... or maybe it's already too late... the mainstream browser accepts 'URLs' of the format shown in 5 :-( Gudge
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|