- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:45:39 -0700
- To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>, www-tag@w3.org
- CC: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
Michael Mealling wrote: > > ... > > If there were some language in there explaining why it was SHOULD and > what valid reasons for not following the recommendation I would be > much happier... That would constrain users from using their common sense. Are you sure you want to do that? If you push the issue you might not like what comes out. > But still, I think the language should not mention any particular URI scheme. > Only particular semantics that schemes would need for a given application. Fine with me. "Easily accessible" strongly implies HTTP anyhow, and for the purposes of discussion FTP is probably just as good. URN: is not, I'm afraid, unless your target audience has a URN resolution system deployed. --- Come discuss XML and REST web services at: Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/ Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 19:46:14 UTC