- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:58:44 -0700
- To: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
- Cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, harald@alvestrand.no, Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>, Rich Petke <rpetke@wcom.net>, Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com, uri@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> At the end of the day, it would be great if this community could agree on > *one* mapping between the two formats. I'd get laughed out of the room if > I suggested as a work item for our developer team to map the n-to-n > possible ways a media type can be expressed as a URI as something we should > implement in any of our products. Me too. Personally, I think it is absurd to require all namespaces be represented as absolute URI. That is a pointless waste of bandwidth and doesn't reflect the lessons learned from real-life usage of URI. It is nice to be able to map any name to a universally-complete namespace with a standardized root, but only if the common case is for the important bits to be represented as a relative URI. It doesn't even need to have a real base -- just an imaginary one. Of course, nobody can do that with the URN syntax, which is why I won't be using it. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 20:03:35 UTC