- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 18:00:15 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, timbl@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, jeanpa@microsoft.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu, dsr@w3.org, lehors@w3.org, ij@w3.org
At 06:10 PM 23/10/97 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: I think Dan stated the problem well. Just as a point of information, >The XML spec currently says URL all the way, but there > are a lot of folks who are interested in URN > developments who think this prohibits the > use of URNs in XML. They call for s/URL/URI/ > in the XML specs. But then... what to cite? > RFC1630, even with its informational status > and bugs? >http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xml-970807.html Up till now, the XML WG has been fairly untroubled in deciding that we should be consistent and use URL, until such time as there are ubiquitous, interoperable implementations of one or more of these other schemes. Our worry about using URIs would be not so much readability, as the danger of vendors and subcultures starting to use URNs or FPIs or something, thus losing interoperability, while claiming conformance on the basis that these things are in some way URIs. We have this mantra that every XML processsor should be able to read every XML document, always. On the other hand, nobody wants to stand in the way of achieving progress in Web addressing. Cheers, Tim Bray tbray@textuality.com http://www.textuality.com/ +1-604-708-9592
Received on Thursday, 23 October 1997 21:03:52 UTC