- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:58:10 +0100
- To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
-public-html +www-archive ...as this is getting slightly off-topic for the HTML WG and I don't like spamming the list. On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:27:12 +0100, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > The advantage to "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" though is that it can be > pasted into a browser, and resolves to a page that explains what it is > and where to find the spec. "http://w3.org/xlink" could do the same, > easily. There are disadvantages to that, too, though. The URI is not meant to be dereferenced, but since it is dereferencable, it *is* by a lot of lazy scripts and crappy software, which leads to an ongoing DDoS attack at w3.org. http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic Moreover, that advantage is pretty moot given http://www.google.com/search?q=w3c:xlink On a related note, the namespace URI convention used at the W3C has changed not so long ago to not include the year, but that only affects new namespace URIs (like XBL2). -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2008 18:58:49 UTC