- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:53:34 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 25, 2009, at 11:51, Julian Reschke wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> The point of suggesting "about" as the string before the colon was >> that due to pre-existing special use in browsers, it won't be >> feasible for anyone to register "about" as a URI scheme for another >> purpose. >> The 'tag' URI scheme is less suitable, because 'tag' URIs by their >> nature include non-mnemonic strings which make them harder to >> memorize. > > I don't see why that is a problem. The *only* reason why we're > introducing this doctype variant is to get rid of validator > warnings. So I would expect those who use it to properly type it, > otherwise they'll notice. It's pointless to make people to type something that's hard to remember if we can choose something memorizable. People who need to get the XHTML and SVG namespace URIs right, do take care with them (usually), but it's still a pain to have to look up the right years to put in the URIs. >> Furthermore, the date in the 'tag' URI scheme is dangerously close >> to being a version number, and one of the design goals was to avoid >> putting anything that resembles a version number into the doctype. >> The problem with 'urn' is that there are actual URN resolvers that >> map a subset of URNs onto dereferencable URIs. Even if the 'w3c' >> URN scheme went nowhere, finding out that it goes nowhere could >> still cause waste in theoretically possibly scenarios. Using about: >> addresses even that mostly theoretical case. > > That's *very* theoretical. > > For instance, the urn:uuid: scheme is used all over the place (yes, > not in HTML pages). As far as I can tell, it hasn't caused any > problems yet. OK. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2009 12:54:16 UTC