Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis?

Liam Quin scripsit:

> Finally, it would make sense to abandon the idea of having a URI in there
> at all, and use a formally defined name, preferably one that does not
> start with "http:" in any examples :-)

Then you lose the advantage of leveraging the existing infrastructure
to help you assign a unique name.  Leaving off the scheme doesn't
do it: one person may be permitted to assign "http://example.com"
URIs, and another person be permitted to asign "ftp://example.com" URIs
within the example.com organization.  With no scheme names, they will
step on one another, or need yet another local convention.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
	Yes, I know the message date is bogus.  I can't help it.
		--me, on far too many occasions