[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> Tim Bray scripsit:
>>I think if I ever decided to edit this thing again, I would include
>>something along the lines of Amy's language, that namespace names are
>>strings which follow the syntactic rules for URI references,
>
> It's been pointed out that this is not quite enough: the whole point of
> using URIs (namely the ability to use multiple authorities) depends on
> the (static) semantics of URIs, not just their syntax. It's a semantic
> rule that says "Only microsoft.com can allocate URIs with a microsoft.com
> authority part."
I don't buy it. The system will self-correct; if I start publishing
namespace names in microsoft.com or reutershealth.org space, the results
in general and interoperability in particular will be poor, so I won't
do that. In fact, the current claim that NSnames *be* URI refs doesn't
give you what you want, right? -Tim
|
