[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 17:05, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> henrik.martensson@bostream.nu (Henrik Martensson) writes:
> >I would be interested in seeing your take on a multiended link that has
> >no collection of exposed URIs. The XHTML 2.0 img element does not
> >qualify, I believe, because, well, it does have a collection of
> >attributes, and their values are exposed.
>
> This point is worth addressing, whatever the context.
>
> I have no qualms about exposing URLs. People are familiar with URLs,
> and the notion of pointing to something using a URL is well-understood.
Agreed. (And thank you for writing "URL" and not "URI".)
>
> I draw the line at exposing URIs when used as identifiers for purposes
> other than retrieval. This seems to be the W3C's universal escape
> hatch, whether for namespaces, RDF, or XLink. Unfortunately, the
> combination of opacity, confusion with URLs, and cross-referencing
> difficulty as their number increases seems to produce as much chaos as
> it resolves.
Agreed.
>
> The distinction between URLs and URIs seems to be one worth emphasizing
> in practice, even if the standards bodies are doing their best to blur.
Very much agreed.
/Henrik
|
