W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal

From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Sat May 27 20:38:32 2000
Message-Id: <200005280102.VAA20817@locke.ccil.org>
To: cce@clarkevans.com (Clark C. Evans)
Cc: david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk, cce@clarkevans.com, xml-uri@w3.org
Clark C. Evans scripsit:

> Correct.  For backwards compatibility, re-write all of the examples
> to use "data:" and then deprechiate use of any other URI type!

Better yet, just agree that the namespace name *always* implies a data
URI encapsulating it.

>     DEFINE NAMESPACE EQUIVALENCE AS A BYTE-FOR-BYTE COMPARISON
>     OF THE RESOURCE AS RESOLVED *AND* RETRIEVED.

That is horrible: it means processing software is at the mercy of
document editors who see fit to use URLs that are hard to fetch
(or downright impossible, like mid: or cid:, if you don't have
the relevant email message around).  Caching just amortizes the extra cost,
it doesn't eliminate it.

> The equivalence class for "http:" URIs is already defined
> by resolution & retrival.

No, it isn't.  To repeat my argument (*sigh*):

If accessing two URIs retrieves the same entity body, it proves nothing
[about the two URIs identifying the same resource]: they may have the
same content by coincidence.

If accessing two URIs retrieves a different entity body, it still proves
nothing: they may identify a single time-varying resource.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
	Yes, I know the message date is bogus.  I can't help it.
		--me, on far too many occasions
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 20:38:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:23 GMT