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

Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:22:46 -0700
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B6C3@HQ5>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B6C3@HQ5>

Len wrote:
> [Thomas B. Passin]
>> "uri:xxx:yyy" has nothing there and when dereferenced, does not return a 404
>> error. Neither does "http://xxx/yyy".  You can always try to dereference
>> anything including a GUID, but then
>>
>> The problem of course is the net is then free
>> To say thing one and thing two do not be.
>
> Really?  Test it.
>

Feh.  If what you mean by "URIs are always dereferencable"
is "you can type them at MSIE and it will do something,"
then sure, that's a true statement.  Not a very useful one,
but true.

But I think I finally see where Len is going with this.
There is an algorithm for resolving URLs; *that* is what
makes them useful.  When RDF and XMLNS play Humpty Dumpty
and insist that a URI means what they intend it to mean,
nothing more and nothing less, contrary to established
practice and common understanding, it diminishes the value
of URLs.

Am I on the right track here?


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The version number in XML documents
• Next by Date: Re: RE: XML Infosets and SOAP 1.2
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce
• Next by thread: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread