- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:01:35 +0100 (BST)
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Cc: <public-iri@w3.org>, <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
> >> You should simply drop this effort and use IRI References instead. There > >> is a high cost associated with yet another notion of resource identifier > >> technology > >This is not another notion of resource identifier. It is the existing > >notion used for XML system identifier, XLink href, and several other > >things. We are merely providing a name and a single place for a > >definition that already exists in multiple specs. > If these things are not resource identifiers, then what are they? I did not mean that they were not resource identifiers. It was the "yet another" part that I was disputing. They are an *existing* form of resource identifiers, which does not have an name and whose definition is currently replicated in several places. -- Richard
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 10:02:13 UTC