[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Doesn't this essentially say:
1. If you use http:// it is a URL. Period. In effect,
there is no real difference between a URI and a URL
that uses http. The expectations of the web gospel
are different in the new testament.
2. The namespace specification should be rewritten
to include the possibility of resolution of namespace
identifiers and state that when http is there, expect
it to be resolved, so require a document and suggest
some examples of what might be expected, plus a default
if none (eeeeee... better than 404?) so then RDDL might
become a W3C spec and the default.
I can't tell if this opens up a can of worms or
if the fish aren't going bite.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
Fair enough. The convention _should be_ (IMHO) that URIs that have schemes
associated with network protocols are resolvable using that protocol. So
that best practice is to associate all "http:" URIs with some document for
the reasons you describe above.
....the convention be that _something always_ be returned.
|
