Lists Home |
Date Index |
Just use the public ID.
From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Okay. Once again, the issue of whether a URL used as a Namespace URI should
be resolvable or not has come up. The main confusion here is that the URI
given looks like a resolvable URL. Most people would look at it and expect
it to be able to resolve the URL to some sort of related document. As shown
with the govtalk URL though, this is not always the case. But, I can
understand the reasoning behind the use of the URL format. It is a
convenient and quick way to create a URI that is easy to remember and/or
understand (I still don't understand URNs).
However, as soon as the "http" scheme is mentioned, people start to assume
it is a resolvable URL. So how about this... why don't we just come up with
a new scheme to use instead of "http". For instance, we could have "xmlns".
Then, when seeing "xmlns://www.govtalk.gov.uk/CR/core" or preferably
"xmlns://govtalk.gov.uk/CR/core", we would know that the URL is not
resolvable (at least using HTTP). At the same time, organizations can
continue to use the URL format for its conveniences.