[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:24:40AM -0800, Jeff Lowery wrote:
> > Registries are evil, DNS is there it's already a massive robbery,
> > though I like the business model [*], I dislike being a forced client.
>
> DNS's are a magnitude or two above the complexity of a simple prefix
> registry. I don't see any need for replication; prefix caches can be
> maintained locally, and sparsely.
>
> The only real purpose of the this registry is to ensure uniqueness. It
> could maintain URIs, also, but if the URI is a RDDL, that's all that has to
> be maintained: the URI. You can cache the RDDL stuff however way you want.
Doesn't change the problem.
I want prefixes "m" "ms" "microsoft" "ibm" and "xml" for good measure.
Now if you are this authority, how to you get this power, and how are you
managing the vast amount of money I may offer for those specific prefixes.
The technical problem is nothing compared to that delegation of power
over names, and the problem of actually maintaining the registry over time.
How can you promise to keep an identifier in the base the same for the duration
I expect my data to be living (100 years maybe) ? Of course if you break
then my data loose their integrity or meaning ... Sorry this is too critical,
to rely on a registry.
Yes this applies also to DNS, that why namespace object at the XML
level are only manipulated as strings. DNS provides the uniqueness,
by lack of a better mechanism. Suggesting to build another one doesn't
help IMHO
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
