- From: Jeremy Dunck <ralinon@hotmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 14:13:34 -0500
- To: tbray@textuality.com, LMM@acm.org
- Cc: pcotton@microsoft.com, www-tag@w3.org, pgrosso@arbortext.com, roy.fielding@day.com
Sorry for dupe, Tim. >From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> >Larry Masinter wrote: > >>Let me turn this around: why do you think it's important to stamp >>out the practice of using "urn" URIs for namespace names? <snip> >And I continue to think that permanence is an artifact of publisher's >intention and community practice, rather than what comes before the first >":". While I think that having HTTP URIs, which could be dereferenced, is useful, one obstacle in the way of HTTP URI permanence is the leasing of domain names. Since a domain I own today might slip out of my ownership, despite the best intentions, any namespace I might allocate on that domain is suspect. Do we want to tackle permanent domain ownership, with titles and grants for legal transfer? ;) It's useful (to me, at least) to note that I could own a domain, but no web server at all, and still make legitimate claims to namespaces allocated within that domain. -Jeremy _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 15:13:41 UTC