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

RE: URIs harmful

• To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: URIs harmful
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:41:15 +0200
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105DCDAD8@r...>

---
Danny Ayers
<stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff>

Idea maps for the Semantic Web
http://www.isacat.net/ideagraph


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@m...]
>Sent: 24 July 2002 22:26
>To: Danny Ayers; xml-dev@l...
>Subject: RE:  URIs harmful
>
>
>> The bottom line is that allowing http://blah etc. syntax to be treated
>as
>> a non-deferenceable URI doesn't break anything, insisting that it
>should
>> always be dereferenceable breaks the web
>
>Of course.  The web never insisted that hyperlinks be dereferencable at
>all times.
>
>On the other hand, it is exceedingly poor form to use identifiers from
>the HTTP scheme for things which you don't intend to be dereferenced
>(via HTTP synchronous GET, no less).

Hmm - and who might the arbiters of good form be? And what should I use in
my markup instead of xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" ?

I more or less agree with you here on the principle, but just think if we
closed that barn door now then a lot of horses would be going without
supper. Ok, I've no problem with the use of http: being deprecated when the
protocol's not involved, but I don't think this calls for an entirely new
naming scheme or any other drastic action.

Anyhow, I propose a compromise : let's restrict the use of http:// naming to
*within* documents found by that protocol...

Cheers,
Danny.

• References:
  • RE: URIs harmful
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Resolving Images
• Next by Date: RE: URIs harmful
• Previous by thread: RE: URIs harmful
• Next by thread: Re: URIs harmful
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread