RE: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

> 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."