[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:39:17 -0700 (MST)
> > > Most of the unfulfilling argument surrounding it springs from the
> > > assumption that, since namespace names *look* like URLs, they should
> *act*
> > > like URLs -- that is, that one should be able to to point a Web Browser
> > > at them and retrieve something useful since they look like something one
> > > might point a Web Browser at. This assumption, while not unreasonable,
> > > is explicitly disclaimed by the namespaces spec.
> >
> > Really? Where?
>
> Section 2[1] says:
>
> 'The namespace name, to serve its intended purpose, should have the
> characteristics of uniqueness and persistence. It is not a goal that it be
> directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists).'
I had gathered that Joe meant something stronger. Certainly this passage
doesn't bar Web Browser access. Maybe as Jonathaan Borden suggests I'm
just being too nit-picky in this discussion.
> I note from this that it only mentions retrieval of schemata but maybe it is
> reasonable to extend the meaning of the statement to cover all resource
> types.
I think we need stronger than "reasonable".
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
