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

Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:06:17 -0700
• References: <200208022156.RAA13696@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722

John Cowan wrote:
> Tim Bray scripsit:
>>I think if I ever decided to edit this thing again, I would include 
>>something along the lines of Amy's language, that namespace names are 
>>strings which follow the syntactic rules for URI references,  
> 
> It's been pointed out that this is not quite enough: the whole point of
> using URIs (namely the ability to use multiple authorities) depends on
> the (static) semantics of URIs, not just their syntax.  It's a semantic
> rule that says "Only microsoft.com can allocate URIs with a microsoft.com
> authority part."

I don't buy it.  The system will self-correct; if I start publishing 
namespace names in microsoft.com or reutershealth.org space, the results 
in general and interoperability in particular will be poor, so I won't 
do that.  In fact, the current claim that NSnames *be* URI refs doesn't 
give you what you want, right? -Tim

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: Re: Keeping ISO 8879 Alive (was RE: Markup
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread