Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Micah Dubinko" <MDubinko@cardiff.com>,"Seairth Jacobs" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:46:56 -0800
- Thread-index: AcHEfGAlTaGkJLX8TV+1dviUtjZaGgAABgLg
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs)
Agreed. It isn't as if the namespaces recommendation mandates that
people use HTTP URLs to identify their namespace just valid URIs.
It is counter-productive for people to use strings that in EVERY OTHER
SCENARIO are used to locate a network retrievable resources in situation
where they do not. Personally I believe that every HTTP URL used to
identify a namespace should point to a network retrievable resource
which provides some information about the namespace.
I think it was a mistake for the XML Namespaces recommendation to state
that namespace URIs do not necessarily have to point to a network
retrievable resource. Instead clarification should have been made that
document authors do not have to use valid or existing scheme components
in their namespace URIs.
The former encourages namespace URIs such as
http://example.com/this_is_a_broken_link while the latter encourages
URIs such as bogus-scheme:this-is-my-namespace . Perhaps if this
distinction had been made in the recommendation we would be having
metaphysical debates on what a URI really means every other month.
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #51
If one of my dungeon guards begins expressing concern over the
in the beautiful princess' cell, I will immediately transfer him to a
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Micah Dubinko [mailto:MDubinko@cardiff.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:27 AM
> To: 'Seairth Jacobs'; email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case
> for Namespace URIs)
> Well said. The TP in htTP stands for transport protocol.
> An address starting with 'http://' is like a stamped postcard
> with an address written on it. Of course, you're not
> obligated to mail it, though not doing so would be an
> exceptional case.
> From the viewpoint of non-XML-expert page authors who are
> actually creating most of the content on the Web, this
> concept resonates even stronger--'http://' means 'please make
> an http request at this address'.
> If the right thing to do is neither obvious nor intuitive,
> the vast majority won't do it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:16 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case
> for Namespace
> Yes, I agree. If you want to make something available for
> access via HTTP, then use the "http" scheme in a URL.
> However, if you do not want to make something accessible via
> HTTP, then you should not use the "http" scheme (regardless
> of the conveniences). When someone sees the "http", this
> says "here is a resource that can be retrieved with the
> Hypertext Transport Protocol".
> I agree that "xmlns://govtalk.gov.uk/CR/core" would have been
> no help to you in finding related schema documentation. That
> is the point. You explicitly know that this URL will not
> resolve to documentation, schema definition(s), or anything
> else. For this reason (IMHO) a new scheme such as "xmlns"
> does have more value than using "http" scheme in a URL that
> doesn't point to anything.
> Seairth Jacobs
> SDML/GTP: http://www.seairth.com
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription