[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org> wrote:
| Bray: I remain convinced that URNs are almost always a bad idea for XML
| namespaces.
|
| TimBL: because either they're not resolvable or you're reinventing HTTP.
|
| TimBL's right, of course,
I don't see how. Why must a resolution mechanism (never mind why and for
what) necessarily be something HTTP-like? Or is this a philosophical
statement that any lookup involving a network connection either uses or
reinvents gopher^WHTTP?
| but: a) there's still no consensus on what dereferencing a namespace URI
| should produce;
I'm now hopelessly lost in the twists and turns of URI metaphysics. Why
is a URI necessarily "dereferenceable"?
| c) the 'unenlightened' but influential folks in Redmond WA and Washington
| DC are voting with their feet for URNs and this debate is likely to become
| moot Real Soon Now;
King Canute has always been a role model at the W3C.
|
