Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Brennan wrote:
> This is a minor point, but it points to a more important point. The biggest
> fly in the ointment, here, is the common use of "http:" URIs that don't
> point to anything. I personally consider that to be very bad practice. I
> don't think we can achieve consensus unless we agree that abusing
> well-defined URI schemes for abstract URIs is a bad practice. If it's
> abstract and does not point to anything, use a URN.
From a usability point of view I'm on your side. And in fact I tried to
register an abstract URN namespace for XML namespaces back when it was
hard to do that.
But consider that once you've made the choice to make a URI "abstract"
there is no way to go back. You can't just pop up a web page and change
your mind. If RDDL or something else takes over the universe you are