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

RE: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names

• To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@p...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:31:23 -0800
• Thread-index: AcG33SRfD906JdCdQWuclnzh/J7nSAAJE9Fg
• Thread-topic: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names

A namespace URI is not a HTTP URL nor is not even necessarily a web
accessible resource. Pretending otherwise is folly. If you want to
change the meaning of a namespace URI to mean HTTP URL, I suggest
contacting members of the W3C about updating the XML namespaces spec
instead of encouraging the proliferation of applications that run
counter to the spirit of a published W3C recommendation[0].

[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/ 

-- 
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #68
I will spare someone who saved my life sometime in the past. This is
only reasonable as it encourages others to do so. However, the offer is
good one time only. If they want me to spare them again, they'd better
save my life 
again.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 9:59 AM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Re: Why REST was Re:  URIs 
> are simply names
> 
> 
> Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > 
> >...
> > 
> > Much of these issues were the essence of the xml-uri@w... 
> debacle. 
> > What you say is true. The problem, from an XML Namespaces 
> POV, is that 
> > XML parsers ought not be burdened with an algorithm that depends on 
> > the URI scheme, particularly when new schemes, with new comparison 
> > rules, may be registered with the IETF in the future. From 
> a practical 
> > point of view, simple string comparison is the best solution for a 
> > simple XML parser, on the other hand this doesn't take into account 
> > important features of URIs (such as relative URIs, domain case 
> > insensitivity etc.). So there you have it.
> 
> Practically speaking it would be quite feasible to implement 
> equivalence just for HTTP URIs and not other ones. The Web's 
> record of deploying non-HTTP URIs is quite pitiful. Other 
> than the handful (ftp, mailto,
> etc.) that were standardized In The Beginning, no more have 
> gained currency. For instance rather than having RealAudio 
> URIs, there is a tiny bootstrap file that you get through 
> HTTP. It has within it addressing information for the media 
> player software.
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread