- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 03:13:22 -0600
- To: Patrik Faltstrom <paf@swip.net>
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-url@imc.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Patrik Faltstrom wrote: > > Is it really necessary/useful to go through this exercise twice? > > A namespace is definitely not the same thing as a URL scheme. Two > different things, but the _process_ can be similar, just like the > processes defined for MIME-types. Hmm... argument by assertion. I can play that game too: A namespace definitely IS the same thing as a URL scheme. I don't have any logical argument, but I can cite the intent of the designer of URLs: ------------- http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/DesignIssues/Naming.html TimBL, circa 1990 The WWW scheme uses a prefix to give the addressing sub-scheme, and then a syntax dependent on the prefix used, in order to be open to any new naming systems. -------------- See also, RFC1630 (informational) and TimBL's more recent writings: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/DesignIssues/NameMyth.html including a very intersting and relavent bit about "Naming: A social and contracual Issue." As a trump card, I'll play occam's razor, which places the burden on you to show that they're different. -- Dan Connolly, W3C Architecture Domain Lead <connolly@w3.org> +1 512 310-2971 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ PGP:EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21
Received on Friday, 28 March 1997 04:13:30 UTC