[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Borden writes:
> Well, URIs are an essential part of the Web as we know it, and the Web
> as practiced.
No, URLs are an essential part of the Web as we know it. URIs are a
parasitic outgrowth on that technology which claims to be an improvement
but mostly just adds infinite layers of ambiguity.
> You can call them 'rot' but rid yourselves of URIs and
> you've rid yourself of the Web as we know it today, for better or
> worse.
That's not true. The URL subset runs "the Web as we know it today", and
URIs run "the Web as some folks think it might possibly be someday".
URI advocates who claim the Web as proof that URIs work are grossly
misleading at best.
> Now, certainly there is work to be done to clarify how URIs are
> intended to be used, etc., but like it or not, if you want to deal
> with the Web (as I do) you need to deal with URIs. All so called
> issues with XML Namespaces are just issues with URIs in disguise.
Sure. Fix the rot in URIs, and I think we might talk much less about
namespaces.
Unfortunately, I see no signs that the URI community is willing to think
past tautologies like "a URI is an identifier for a resource, while a
resource is anything that can be identified." Restating the
signifier/signified distinction hasn't helped us any.
I think it's time for the XML community to move away from endless
discussions of broken technologies whose core communities seem
uninterested in fixing them. Hence my suggestion for a quarantine.
Isolate the rot, and keep it from spreading further.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
