[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> I also agree 100%, and would love to see this clarification in the namespace
> rec. However, I don't think it will eliminate the whole "deref" issue with
> namespaces. After all, the current spec uses weasel words (as I and others
> heatedly and repeatedly pointed out in the great debate that yielded RDDL) in
> trying to avoid the semantic black hole: they say the URI is not meant to be
> dereferenced.
Erm, pardon the pedantry, but it doesn't say that at all. It says "It
is not a goal that it be directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if
any exists)." Few sentences have delivered as high an angst-per-word
ratio; it's the standards-organization equivalent of the 2nd amendment
to the US constitution. -Tim
|
