Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jeff Lowery wrote:
> It could coexist. Registered prefixes could be handled as colonized names
> by parser with namespace awareness turned off. There would have to be some
> convention to denote a registered prefix, and there has to be a well-known
> server (though it doesn't necessarily have to be accessed during parsing).
Sorry, for being negative in this post, but I'm sure that many
(including me) are against any form of central registries.
But even beyond that, the word registry (central or not - a distributed
registry is achievable)- means more request>response lag. This
complicates the design further as a large part of use-cases will demand
a local mirror of the registry.
People tired of typing URIs use entities (a common thing among RDF
people). Do we want prefixes to break out of the document scope?
In general I agree that a new namespaces mechanism would be a good thing
(if designed utilising community feedback) but the problem is very much
connected with the (miss) use of URIs in general. The current situation
is just a pot where URIs as vocabularies, namespaces, locators and
identifiers boil all together. Different people have different views
about what the dish will taste like.