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

Re: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:36:37 -0700
Message-ID: <3D21BA75.9000709@textuality.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Michael Mealling wrote:

> Depending on the application, dereferenceability is not required and
> URNs make the most sense out of anything out there. There's a reason
> Microsoft put them all over their Office suite. 

That's a realy terrible example.  Those office URNs are a disaster, and 
I suspect that Microsoft did this partly to avoid documenting their 
kludgy proprietary file formats.   The world would be an immensely 
better place if those were real URLs with real documentation at the end 
of them.

> But the TAG should also realize that there are many 
> cases where dereferenability of namespace names is exactly _NOT_ what the
> system being designed wants to happen.

The only plausible example of this that I've seen is that of 
highly-transient per-transaction namespaces that exist only briefly. 
Can you think of any others?  At the moment, my belief is that someone 
who wants to use a namespace, but doesn't want to let people find out 
about it using the Web, is either nefarious or incompetent.   That's the 
motivation for the SHOULD. -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 10:32:45 GMT

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