- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 07:36:37 -0700
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Michael Mealling wrote: > Depending on the application, dereferenceability is not required and > URNs make the most sense out of anything out there. There's a reason > Microsoft put them all over their Office suite. That's a realy terrible example. Those office URNs are a disaster, and I suspect that Microsoft did this partly to avoid documenting their kludgy proprietary file formats. The world would be an immensely better place if those were real URLs with real documentation at the end of them. > But the TAG should also realize that there are many > cases where dereferenability of namespace names is exactly _NOT_ what the > system being designed wants to happen. The only plausible example of this that I've seen is that of highly-transient per-transaction namespaces that exist only briefly. Can you think of any others? At the moment, my belief is that someone who wants to use a namespace, but doesn't want to let people find out about it using the Web, is either nefarious or incompetent. That's the motivation for the SHOULD. -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 10:32:45 UTC