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

RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:58:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105BA20FD@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

This seems fine to me.  But for God's sake let's make sure any guidance
on this makes it very clear that this is a namespace *name*, and
although it may function as a stand-in for the namespace URI, it is
*not* the URI.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:52 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Ian B. Jacobs; Tim Bray; www-tag@w3.org
> 
> 
> Yes. URNs are not dereferencable and therefore should not be used for
> namespace names.  It deprives someone who does not know the name
> of the ability to look it up and get useful information about it.
> It especially deprives a machine of that possibility.
> 
> Tim BL
> 
> On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 04:48 PM, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> 
> Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> > Since URIs comprise the set of URNs as well as URLs I'm not sure
exactly
> > how one can state that namespace names should be dereferencable if
there
> > is no uniform mechanism for dereferencing URNs nor is it clear
whether
> > they were originally designed to be dereferenced.
> >
> > --
> > PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
> > In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared minds..
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> >
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 17:59:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:09 GMT