- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:33:44 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, uri@w3.org, uri-review@ietf.org
Graham Klyne scripsit: > I'd agree those are trivial most of the time, but I think the apparent > triviality here-and-now may mask future difficulties with evolving > use of URIs within the Web architectural framework. What about, say, > use as an owl:import in an OWL ontology, or in application like CWM > as the object of a log:semantics statement? In both of these cases, > there's a cross-over between URI-as-identifer and URI-for-retrieval. Well, I'd say that roughly speaking a URI can be a name, a reference, or a source (for inclusion/transclusion). In the first case, any URI will do. In the second case, we have a rough practical understanding of what it means to dereference a javascript: URI (something happens). The third case is problematic, but so it is for many existing schemes like tel: and telnet:. I make no claim to be comprehensive, but I think the burden of persuasion is on someone who'd show that javascript: is more difficult than the others like it. -- My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan For XML Schema's too taxing: cowan@ccil.org I'd use DTDs http://www.ccil.org/~cowan If they had local trees -- I think I best switch to RELAX NG.
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 14:34:02 UTC