Re: URI resolver was Re: RDDL and XML Schemas Proposed Recommendation

[Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 06:18:49PM -0500, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > While it may be safely lost on people (users?), if its lost on system 
> > designers you get huge interoperability problems....
> 
> Well, there is a point at which you have to ask yourself "if it's
> so confusing, is it useful?". I've often found that the most 
> difficult to comprehend things can be replaced safely with 
> a simpler conceptual model... and then everyone is happy.

The problem isn't that the basic concept is difficult to understand.
Instead its the fact that the W3C and the IETF have done a lousy
job of making their constituents aware of the axiomatic standards.

> In the case of URI's, people already have a "user model" that
> a URI can be resolved to *something*. If the "system model"
> doesn't work this way, so what? Eventually, the user model
> will become the defacto standard and the system model will
> become irrelevant.

That's Microsoft's point of view and it creates a web where you
have to use a browser made by the same vendor as the one used to
author the page. The web and the Internet are about interoperability
and the only way that happens is if we all agree on some basic
assumptions about how things work and stick to them.

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com