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

On Sat, 27 May 100, John Cowan wrote:
> >     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). 

What use would "mid:" or "cid:" have as a namespace name?

I see two common cases:

    a) "data:some-unique-text"
and
    b) "http:\\some-well-known-and-fetchable-resource"

> Caching just amortizes the extra cost, it 
> doesn't eliminate it.

For those people who want both identification *and* retrival; 
they can use "http:"   For those other individuals who want
just identification, we can use "data:" and avoid the extra 
costs.  This fits nicely with the you-pay-for-what-you-use
phlisophy.  It also does not distort the behavior people 
expect when they see an "http:\\" uniform resource *locator*

Best,

Clark