[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> No. Unless you build a means and tell the parser to invoke
> it, an FPI is a dumb string.
My point is that if FPIs were used for the sorts of things that XML
technologies use URI for, that there would be a standard means for lookup and
"dereferencing". It would just come about naturally.
Same thing if specs mandated URNs rather than URIs. There would have been
systems for resolving URNs in place by now.
Nothing that is treated as a global identifier remains a "dumb string" for
long. Nothing.
> A URzed is always dereferenceable. If we accept that, then what
> we call it and the semantic issues go away.
Wow. That's confidence. For my part, I think there will be plenty of
semantic issues left even if one were to declare that a URI is "always
dereferenceable".
BTW, I personally don't have a problem with such a declaration. It's just
that I'm not entirely sure what it means.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/li
brary/x-think11.html
|
