W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > January 2010

RE: url versus urn for namespace uri?

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:49:13 -0000
To: "'Rusty Wright'" <rwright.lists@gmail.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C2D355BB011340C3A76BBFF0E4CDDC3D@Sealion>
> 1) Are there any pros and cons for using a URN for a 
> namespace URI?  It seems that most people use URLs but I feel 
> like that adds to the confusion with people expecting that 
> URL to have something there if you go to it with a web browser.

Some people like to use a namespace URI that can be dereferenced to locate a
"namespace document" of some kind. This is standard practice in W3C, for
example.

In my mind this represents a gross confusion: a URI should uniquely identify
a single thing, and using the same URI to identify a namespace as well as a
document containing a human-readable or machine-readable description of the
namespace is a cheat. It's confusing the thing with a document describing
the thing. But it's an established convention, so who am I to argue?

The rot of using URIs starting with "http" set in a long time ago, and it's
probably best to just swim with the tide.

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay 
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 09:49:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:15:16 GMT