- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 14:09:26 -0700
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
On May 9, 2014, at 13:44 , Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:29 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > On May 9, 2014, at 12:50 , Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 9 May 2014 21:29, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > It strikes me that the TAG might have an opinion, and indeed Ian suggested such... > > > > Im curious, when would the w3c want to use a URN root, instead of an HTTP URL from the root > > > > http://www.w3.org/ > > > > Maybe it's just never come up? > > Maybe it hasn’t. > > It did come up. The TAG never developed an opinion, even though it tried to. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50 > > But W3C was certainly aware of URNs when it started using http: URLs in a name-like way in the late 1990s, e.g. for XML namespace names and for RDF ontology terms. That had to have been a deliberate decision, informed perhaps by http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NameMyth.html . OK, but that document assumes that there is a thing (as opposed to a concept) identified. At root, I would like to be able to use HTML5 ‘kind’s as DASH ‘role’s and I think it better for the W3C to define the URN than MPEG. I am not sure there is a real architectural problem here. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 21:10:03 UTC