- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:58:08 -0700
- To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
This seems fine to me. But for God's sake let's make sure any guidance on this makes it very clear that this is a namespace *name*, and although it may function as a stand-in for the namespace URI, it is *not* the URI. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org] > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:52 PM > To: Dare Obasanjo > Cc: Ian B. Jacobs; Tim Bray; www-tag@w3.org > > > Yes. URNs are not dereferencable and therefore should not be used for > namespace names. It deprives someone who does not know the name > of the ability to look it up and get useful information about it. > It especially deprives a machine of that possibility. > > Tim BL > > On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 04:48 PM, Dare Obasanjo wrote: > > Dare Obasanjo wrote: > > Since URIs comprise the set of URNs as well as URLs I'm not sure exactly > > how one can state that namespace names should be dereferencable if there > > is no uniform mechanism for dereferencing URNs nor is it clear whether > > they were originally designed to be dereferenced. > > > > -- > > PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM > > In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared minds.. > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > > rights. > >
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 17:59:25 UTC