[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike,
> 7/29/2002 2:06:31 PM, jborden@attbi.com wrote:
>
> >
> >In any case suppose we agree with TimBL i.e.
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html ... it seems to push the
> rathole onto what a fragment identifier identifies ... sigh. The more so-
> called solutions to these issues I've seen, the more questions are
> raised.
> >
>
> Speaking of ratholes, doesn't TimBL's position imply that namespace names
> should URI *references* -- the URI itself would point to a document, and
> some #fragment thingie would refer to the abstract namespace that the
> document discusses?
>
> Forgive me if I misinterpret this ... anyway, that piece by TimBL seems
> like required reading for anyone who cares about this issue. I for one I
> do find notion that URIs refer to nice concrete bundles of bits on the
> Internet rather comforting!
>
Yes, it *is* a problem for many namespace names, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0320.html ... I'm glad that this gives you a warm and fuzzy :-)
Jonathan
|
