W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Comments on draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-02.txt

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:56:57 -0700
Message-ID: <3CCF0519.7000200@textuality.com>
Cc: ietf-xml-use@imc.org, www-tag@w3.org
Michael Mealling wrote:

[on why-URNs?]

> Because it doesn't create a single point of failure for when that
> resource is no longer available. This probably won't be a consideration
> for most things but for highly used protocols it very well could be 
> an issue.

We're mostly in agreement, but for the record I've always had a hard 
time believing that URNs will actually be more reliable/persistent in 
practice; the causes of URL breakage are mostly incompetence and 
stupidity, and a guaranteed level of indirection may not succeed in 
routing around this.

> Weeeelll, the evidence I've seen suggests that there are a _large_
> number of people using URNs as namespace names instead. I think every
> single namespace used in MS Office uses a URN (albiet an unregistered one!)
> I think every web services example from IBM I've seen is using them.

Yeah, the MS Office practice is really egregious in my view.

>>>P.S. I though the TAG was going to defer to the URI group URI related 
>>>issues? At least that's they way it was represented to me....
>>It increasingly seems like *everything* is a URI-related issue.  Only 
>>half kidding. -Tim
> My favorite definition for the web was one TimBL used a long time ago:
> "The Web is the set of 'things' that can be identified by a URI" (and that
> included physical objects!).  So, while you're only half kidding, I actually 
> prefer the idea. ;-)

Aha! Thus we can disband the TAG and most of the W3C and the IETF HTTP 
work and turn all the work over to the URI group and go back to writing 
code and taking vacations.  I *like* this approach:)  -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 16:57:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:31 UTC