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: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:35:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105BA224F@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> That's a realy terrible example.  Those office URNs are a disaster,
and
> I suspect that Microsoft did this partly to avoid documenting their

Not to get all defensive, but ... :-)

Personally, I always supported the office-style URNs, because there is
absolutely no confusion about whether or not the URN identifies a web
page (it obviously doesn't).  I also thought it was reckless and
irresponsible for people to overload http: URLs to refer to both a web
page and a namespace.

Or to put it another way, there were plenty of people who thought that
the urn: scheme was the most appropriate way to name namespaces without
sabotaging the value of URLs.

BUT, taking religious positions is a waste of time, and IMO it is way
past time for W3C to solve the whole debate by fiat.  So I welcome the
declaration "all namespace names SHOULD use easily-dereferenced URLs." 
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 14:35:33 GMT

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