Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Oh dear ... I've already used that URI to denote the class of people
> who don't have a firm grip on the concept of naming ;-)
Heh. But I'm afraid that it's my URI space, and only I get to decide
what my URIs identify.
> Question 1: What's to stop me doing that?
Nothing. We can all identify bricks in our own way.
> Question 2: If there's nothing to stop me, what does this tell us
> about the usefulness of private conventions involving the
> use of http: URIs as names?
What private conventions? What I did is no more private than using
the words "Mark's bricks", just with a different syntax that happens to
have some useful properties; being resolvable, being the biggie. But
like "Mark's bricks", it can be used without resolution because
it's just a name.
> Question 3: Why is the http: URI scheme any better (or worse) than
> any other in this regard?
Because it was designed to allow resolution and manipulation of
anything with identity.
If I was asked to identify a file, I might have chosen ftp:.
If I was asked to identify a mailbox, I might have chosen mailto:
But I can identify both with http:
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. email@example.com