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

Re: Namespace name: better to use URN or URL?

• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: costello@m...
• Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:44:08 +0100

> - the advantage of formulating a namespace name as a URL is that the
> namespace "could" then have a dual purpose - 

I think the main advantage of using a URL (in particular a http scheme
URI) is that it offers a cheap and cheerful way of allocating yourself a
globally unique name without having to get into the rather arcane world
of urn allocation. Looking at your examples

   urn:publishing:book

versus

    http://www.publishing.com/book

If you own publishing.com then you can easily ensure the second URI is
unique, but for the first, how to  urn:publishing names work???

The disadvantage (that seems trivial but has proved almost fatal to the
entire namespace mechanism) is that by using a http scheme it makes
naive users think there is something retrievable and makes some non
naive users want to make that naive wish true by putting something
at that location.

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• References:
  • Namespace name: better to use URN or URL?
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: Namespace name: better to use URN or URL?
• Next by Date: XML Accessibility Guidelines
• Previous by thread: Namespace name: better to use URN or URL?
• Next by thread: RE: Namespace name: better to use URN or URL?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread