[Sorry for the formatting of my posts; I'm on a web-based mail client today,
and am stuck with the "response before the mail" format...]
I can't say that "architectural conformance" is too strong an argument, yet.
I'm *willing* to be convinced of this point, but I'm not convinced yet.
(I'm tempted to ask "Is the web that strongly architected?", but I'm afraid
to, because I seem to recall *that* being discussed here ad nauseum as
well...)
So I'll ask this instead: What is it about the "architecture of the web"
that would be broken, hampered, or less elegant, if we used something other
than URIs for namespace names?
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan
To:
Cc:
Sent: 7/25/2002 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
David Hunter scripsit:
> So what are the other benefits of using URI for namespace names, that
I'm
> missing?
Architectural conformance. When you want to name something on the Web,
you use a URI; that's one of the things that makes the Web.
> Do people have these kinds of problems with Java package names?
Probably not. Maybe there should be an URN type for them?
There is already one for SGML/XML public identifiers.
