W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2006

Re: [Uri-review] Re: The 'javascript' scheme

From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:33:44 -0500
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>, uri@w3.org, uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20061110143344.GE610@ccil.org>

Graham Klyne scripsit:

> I'd agree those are trivial most of the time, but I think the apparent
> triviality here-and-now may mask future difficulties with evolving
> use of URIs within the Web architectural framework.  What about, say,
> use as an owl:import in an OWL ontology, or in application like CWM
> as the object of a log:semantics statement?  In both of these cases,
> there's a cross-over between URI-as-identifer and URI-for-retrieval.

Well, I'd say that roughly speaking a URI can be a name, a reference,
or a source (for inclusion/transclusion).  In the first case, any URI
will do.  In the second case, we have a rough practical understanding
of what it means to dereference a javascript: URI (something happens).
The third case is problematic, but so it is for many existing schemes
like tel: and telnet:.

I make no claim to be comprehensive, but I think the burden of persuasion
is on someone who'd show that javascript: is more difficult than the
others like it.

-- 
My confusion is rapidly waxing          John Cowan
For XML Schema's too taxing:            cowan@ccil.org
I'd use DTDs                        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
If they had local trees --
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 14:34:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC