[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Resource Gloss (Human Readable)
- From: Rick Jelliffe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:54:12 +0800
From: Jeff Rafter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>... The only response to the question of whether or not the
> format *should* be human readable was a quick flame. As an end-user
> from the outside in-- it would seem much more logical to include a human
> readable description of a resource simply within the catalog (used
> of associated resources rather than making the document itself readable.
Unless it supports existing practise, I odon't see how it can fly. In other
words, we cannot attempt to *mandate* that an http: * namespace URIef
retirieves an XHTML document. he people who want to retrieve a schema (i.e.
the people who only want to provide a schema on the net, or the people who
want the schema to be the first and fastsest related resource to be
retrieved) will simply choose to ignore it: unless our system supports
existing uses, I don't think it improves matters.
So I think we need to supprot
as well as Tim's preferred
doumnet-(namespace RI)->ResourceDirectory->other resources including XML
and (to push the hobbyhorse)
Which is not to say that Tim's prefeerred chain is not the best practise one
for public namespaces.