[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
clbullar@ingr.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>I have this nervous feeling that in the
>80/20, think small, dare to do less, philosophies,
>the URzedEverywhere implications aren't
>completely thought through and we have entered
>a historical timeframe where they have to be.
It'll be an interesting process, one that seems to operate at a
"historical" (slightly faster than geological) pace.
Questioning URIs right now seems to get few new answers. I've concluded
that URI references are severely limited abbreviations, while the
opacity of URIs is useful in some contexts but a liability in others.
Given "core principles" like this:
-------------------------------
CP2. When specifying the use of URIs, designers SHOULD NOT constrain the
use of URI schemes.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0107.html
-------------------------------
That's going to make it awfully hard to define URI best practices on any
but the most abstract terms.
CP4 brings us back to immediate questions about RDDL:
-------------------------------
CP4. XML-based languages MUST be given a namespace name and the elements
of the language MUST be placed in that namespace. Designers SHOULD make
available a representation of the namespace which is human-readable and
SHOULD make available a representation which is a machine-readable
directory of resources which are related to that namesapce.
-------------------------------
And CP6 brings us to hypertext linking issues more generally:
-------------------------------
CP6. When designing a language that includes linking or hypertext
functionality, designers SHOULD design that functionality so it supports
Web-side rather than merely local linking.
-------------------------------
Well worth a read - should make for interesting times.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
