[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Len,
> 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.
Well actually, particular since one can now 'resolve' a "urn" there is no
difference between a URI and URL under any circumstance i.e. the URI
completely supercedes and incorporates URL and URN. Then again, I just read
the tea leaves... and at least when I write a "riddle" I label it as such
:-))
>
> 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.
>
From the rec: "The attribute's value, a URI reference, is the namespace
name identifying the namespace. 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). ..."
My understanding is that this sort of wiggly language is there on purpose as
a compromise between those that desired vs. those that did not desire the
requirement to resolve a namespace URI. The REC clearly does not require
resolution, however it does not prohibit resolution.
> I can't tell if this opens up a can of worms or
> if the fish aren't going bite.
>
I don't think any can of worms would be opened because people _do_ expect
that "http" URIs are resolvable. Again the principle of least surprise.
Certainly people that _choose_ to use "http" URIs ought expect resolution,
its not like there is a shortage of "urns" or something. I would clear
things up. I think that standardizing common practice is usually a good
thing.
Jonathan
|
