[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
>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
>:-))
I checked my latest popsicle stick and it told me that calendars
should name their daughters May, June and April.
But I didn't know it superceded URL and URN. Ok.
>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.
Then that is political. I remember this debate all too well on XML-Dev
and having had to explain it to the locals, they roll their eyes and
mutter things. I don't think that decision by the Namespace WG helped
it's cause.
>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.
Don't shock the monkey.
>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.
I agree with Harry Truman about one-handed scientists. Standardizing
common practice is a good idea most of the time. I can think of some
habits that shouldn't be and are: burqas for example. But they aren't
going away soon because they created their own self-reinforcing behaviors.
len
|
