Lists Home |
Date Index |
Understood. Many folks come to that conclusion at
some point. So, it comes down to "use a
URN" except URNs allow the protocol morph and that
starts the problem all over again because names,
locations and identifiers are conflated in the
WWW Holy Writ.
That is why I pointed out the Public ID. It's legal and
it may be of some benefit to have owner, description,
version information in there (authoritative contract).
The argument comes back, "but I MIGHT want to resolve it
and I hate catalogs" and the mess starts all over again.
So, this comes down to the cost of preserving that option.
If you want to avoid it, choose and then accept
that by that choice, things like RDDL have to
be gotten by extending the catalog.
We've always known it's a wart. Would you rather
process a SUBDOC?
From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:email@example.com]
Hmm... I missed this one. Well, that would certainly be a good way to do
it. However, I was just suggesting that if someone wanted to use a URL to
identify a namespace, just use a scheme other than the "http". To avoid
ending up with a proliferation of new scheme names, we could just define a
common one that everyone can use. Whether the URL would be helpful in
locating schema documentation or not is another question. The main point is
to avoid the use of the "http" scheme when using the URL format, which would
at least reduce the confusion caused in situations like