Lists Home |
Date Index |
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What public ID?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Seairth Jacobs'" <email@example.com>; "xml-dev"
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace
> Just use the public ID.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Okay. Once again, the issue of whether a URL used as a Namespace URI
> 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
> it to be able to resolve the URL to some sort of related document. As
> 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
> a new scheme to use instead of "http". For instance, we could have
> 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.