- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:43:35 +0100
- To: "Carlos A Velasco" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Cc: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "public-wai-ert@w3.org" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:13:14 +0100, Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de> wrote: Hi Carlos, > Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> What is the use case? > > In fact, Johannes and I want to break a W3C Note-writing record, and we > could not think of something else :-) Seems like a valid reason to me :-) > Seriously, I think that we are not consistent if we have on one side an > earl:uri property for things like WebContent, and on the other hand, we > have all the possibilities to decompose a URI in the HTTP in RDF when > using the http:GetRequest, for instance. With that URI class and its > properties, we may have a consistent way of expressing *any URI*, with > the different schemes, and reuse it in the HTTP note. But maybe, it is > only me who starts to have fun with namespaces ... Right... I have no real objection to doing it beyond the fact that it takes time away from other stuff, but it is pretty simple and I am inclined to trust you guys to just get it right, so it doesn't have to take my time away. I am more wondering if there is a current need for it that you have, or if it's because it will be useful. I can see it having some application in distinguishing mailto: and http: schemes at least. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk Peek into the kitchen: http://snapshot.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 24 March 2006 01:43:39 UTC