W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

Re: TB16 Re: Comments on arch doc draft

From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:14:25 -0400
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020701181425.I14297@bailey.dscga.com>

On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 05:51:30PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> 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.


  Either the web architecture is URI scheme agnostic or it isn't. If
the TAG is coming up with architecture that is scheme dependent then
IMNSHO, its broken.

  And, dammit, URNs are dereferencable regardless of whether or not you
keep bringing up conversations that are almost 10 years old. The rest
of us moved one but you decided not to pay attention or keep up with the
work.  If you need to dereference one then you can look in your 
local catalog, in a proxy, or you can use the DDDS based URI 
Resolution application that is in the process of being deployed 
(using the same technology as ENUM which is being deployed in IP 
telephony networks as we speak). 

  Over in the IETF we continually have to deal with the _destruction_ that 
middle boxes and transparent cashes are causing to the end-to-end 
model _specifically_ because the 'http:' schemes resolution processes are 
broken for a lot of applications that _need_ something like the DDDS
resolution model.

  Can the TAG answer the question please: is the Web architecture really URI 
scheme agnostic or isn't it? Or is the web limited to the fixation some have
with 'http:'? Are we really designing something that is generic and evolvable
over time using a real architecture that allows more than one namespace? 

  Tim, sorry to get bent out of shape but this FUD (and it is __FUD__) has
been going on for 10 years and I'm frankly quiet tired of it. 


> 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.
> >
> >--
> >In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared minds..
> >
> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >rights.
> >

Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
michael@neonym.net      |                              | http://www.neonym.net
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 18:16:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC