- From: james anderson <james.anderson@mecomnet.de>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:41:49 +0200
- To: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
David Carlisle wrote: > > > The question of whether there is a resource retrievable via that name > > really is a completely independent issue. > > There are two questions, whether there has to be a retrievable > entity to which I think everyone agrees the answer is no. > Even if a URI scheme that allows retrieval is used. > No, there are those who don't agree with this. By specifying a scheme which is associated with a retrieval mechanism, the expressed intent is to identify a retrievable resource. In which cases I would judge the expression to be erroneous if the retrieval were to fail. On the other hand, I would concur, that there is no necessary relationship between the document and the namespace. > But I would argue that even if there is a retrievable entity there is > no necessary connection between that docuement and the namespace. > Until a week ago I would not have thought that was at all contentious. >
Received on Monday, 12 June 2000 10:30:22 UTC