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

RE: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)

• To: 'Jonathan Borden' <jborden@m...>, Jeff Greif <jgreif@a...>
• Subject: RE: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:56:18 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Doesn't this essentially say:

1.  If you use http:// it is a URL. Period.  In effect, 
there is no real difference between a URI and a URL 
that uses http.  The expectations of the web gospel 
are different in the new testament.

2.  The namespace specification should be rewritten 
to include the possibility of resolution of namespace 
identifiers and state that when http is there, expect 
it to be resolved, so require a document and suggest 
some examples of what might be expected, plus a default 
if none (eeeeee... better than 404?) so then RDDL might 
become a W3C spec and the default.

I can't tell if this opens up a can of worms or 
if the fish aren't going bite.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

Fair enough. The convention _should be_ (IMHO) that URIs that have schemes
associated with network protocols are resolvable using that protocol. So
that best practice is to associate all "http:" URIs with some document for
the reasons you describe above.

....the convention be that _something always_ be returned.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Namespaces. Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out TheNoise)
    • From: Paul T <pault12@p...>
  • Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RDDL resources for validating XML documents
• Next by Date: Re: TR: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise )
• Previous by thread: RE: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread