Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 19:45:29 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: G. Ken Holman <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
> >Just to confuse people, right ?
> That question does not deserve comment.
Should I start crossposting the emails where people
are constantly asking things like :
"why my XSL transformation is slow, is it because it downloads
something from w3c.org website?"
I think that your remark that "question does not deserve comment"
is in fact a comment.
Thanks for this particular comment. When I get something
like this on XML list, I usually know that I'm right.
> >I think that
> >Is better design than
> > > Why something which is not a URL and was not
> > > supposed to be a URL ( right? ) looks like URL ?
> Because the protocol indication at the beginning of the URL governs the
> format of the rest of the string. If it wasn't there, then there wouldn't
> be any formal rules for the format of the string.
I see absoluetly no need in this http: other than to confuse people.
Especially after your explanation.
> By saying the string is a URI, the rules governing URI strings direct the
> creation of unambiguous URI string values between users of namespaces. If
> it were a free-for-all on the string then two people could end up with the
> same string values and introduce ambiguity. If it were assumed to be a web
> address (as you are proposing) then that prevents people who don't own
> domains to write valid strings that are theirs. There are other protocols
> encompassed by URI strings allowing people who may have ownership of other
> unique values to validly use other protocol indicators to govern the syntax
> of the strings they are using to be unique.
> One could even validly use mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org as a unique URI
> string, thus not requiring them to have their own web site or ISBN
> publisher's prefix or whatever ... this URI is sufficient.
> Why invent a new way in the Internet world for ensuring unique values in as
> many possible domains in a coherent scheme? There is already one to use,
> it is best to use it than have something either ambiguous or competing that
> has the same benefits.
When something is *not* a URL it should *not* look like a URL. My 'invention'
just cleans up the mess, I think. And I still think I'm right because I see not
too much rationale in your arguments.
I see a pattern here. :
"Why document() is addressing relatively to the XSL stylesheet but not
relatively to XML input ?
Because it is our legacy."
"Why it looks like URL, when it could not look like URL?
Because we don't care about those small things and about those
stupid people who are asking stupid questions."
Thanks for your comment.