W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2001

RE: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 07:52:08 +0200
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "'Rob Lanphier'" <robla@real.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>, Rich Petke <rpetke@wcom.net>
Message-ID: <41290000.1001483527@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>


--On tirsdag, september 25, 2001 23:09:49 -0400 Al Gilman 
<asgilman@iamdigex.net> wrote:

> In the XML Accessibility Guidelines, we ask novel dialects not only to
> derive their structure and properties as specializations of widely used
> forebears, but
> also to give analogies where possible to the most-similar well-known media
> types and/or their properties.

being the heretic, as usual....if you want something that names a media 
type, why not use the standard syntax for naming media types, rather than 
shoehorning it into an URI space?

given that this seems a lost cause....all other things being equal, I would 
much prefer a syntactic transformation of the type string into an URI to an 
unspecialized URI that has to be resolved in order to be useful; the recent 
events when Netscape removed the referent target of the RDF 0.9 
specification should be proof enough that URIs used for identification have 
to be useful without depending on resolution mechanisms.

roy: the worst thing with relative URIs is that at any time, there is only 
one base. If you have stuff from 2 naming trees at the same time, you're in 
trouble.

                           Harald
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 01:51:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC