W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 2001

RE: What is at the end of the namespace?

From: Leigh Dodds <ldodds@ingenta.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:36:10 -0000
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-talk@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJOEEJGNAA.ldodds@ingenta.com>

> If what you suggest is true, then we can toss out all URI
> prefixes such as http: mailto: ftp: etc. because, after
> all, their meaning will be implied by context, eh? I.e.
> intead of having
>
>    ftp://foo.abc.com
>    http:/foo.abc.com
>
> I can just use
>
>    uri://foo.abc.com
>
> and whether I need HTTP or FTP access will be clear from context, eh?

No that's not what I meant at all. Just that the implication of your
previous statement

"I can use a 'mailto:' URI to denote an abstract concept and software should
*know* that
it means the abstract concept and not a way to send some content to a
particular mailbox"

was that a mailto: (or other URI) is always processed the same way by all
software,
that there's something inherent in the prefix that dictates what a piece of
software
will do with that piece of data. Which isn't true.

Thats implied by the context in which the data occurs, and the context
in which it is processed and subsequently used.

The fuss over namespace URIs has been a result of the fact that
the most common context in which a HTTP URI is processed is
a web browser.

L.
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 09:37:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT