- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:19:40 -0400
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
David Carlisle wrote: > The relative namespace issue is really not so important, despite the > heat it generates. No, but honoring one's commitments *is* so important. > But this > > > I think that sentence gets exploited to suggest that it's OK > > to use http://example.org/foo as a namespace name and then > > allow 404s for requests to that address, and so we should > > take it out if/when we next revise the Namespace spec. > > suggestion that there _must_ be a resource, at the namesapce uri > would just be a complete change in the way namespaces work. Remember that a resource is abstract, not necessarily equivalent to an entity body. At any one time there may be zero, one, or many entity bodies corresponding to a given resource. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 12:19:57 UTC