- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:58:10 +0100
- To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
-public-html
+www-archive
...as this is getting slightly off-topic for the HTML WG and I don't like
spamming the list.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:27:12 +0100, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> The advantage to "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" though is that it can be
> pasted into a browser, and resolves to a page that explains what it is
> and where to find the spec. "http://w3.org/xlink" could do the same,
> easily.
There are disadvantages to that, too, though. The URI is not meant to be
dereferenced, but since it is dereferencable, it *is* by a lot of lazy
scripts and crappy software, which leads to an ongoing DDoS attack at
w3.org.
http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic
Moreover, that advantage is pretty moot given
http://www.google.com/search?q=w3c:xlink
On a related note, the namespace URI convention used at the W3C has
changed not so long ago to not include the year, but that only affects new
namespace URIs (like XBL2).
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2008 18:58:49 UTC