Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'll have to dissect this one piece by piece:
> From: John Cowan [mailto:email@example.com]
> Jeff Lowery scripsit:
> > Notice that I said that a URI is optional for a registered prefix!
> In fact such a registry will wish to list the registered
That's a feature that is neither absolutely necessary, and even if desirable
it would have no impact on document processing.
> in a Web
> accessible registry of some sort,
That's an assumption. Again, it's not necessary for document processing.
> and so the new proposal
> amounts to the
> old one reborn: for every prefix (in context) there is a URI.
So one-to-one is the same as many-to-one? I don't see a need for a
separate registry for each entry.