W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 2001

RE: What is at the end of the namespace?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:30:56 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B7887732114404316217D7@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: fielding@eBuilt.com, a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk
Cc: www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> The scheme name is completely irrelevant to a URI's capacity for
> identification -- it merely indicates the syntax for that 
> namespace and,
> when used in the context of a user action, some hint to the software
> responsible for that action as to how it should go about handling the
> identifier.  

I really can't agree with that. 

That's like saying that, because a 'mailto:' URI is a URI and
URI's can identify anything, I can use a 'mailto:' URI to 
denote an abstract concept and software should *know* that
it means the abstract concept and not a way to send some
content to a particular mailbox.

Sorry...  I just don't see that as beneficial to the web.

The dilution of semantics of URLs and URNs into just URI
creates just too much confusion about the nature of specific
URI schemes which invites abuse which results in chaos.

The URI scheme *should* say something about the nature and
general semantics of the identifiers grounded in that
scheme. To say that the scheme identity is irrelevant and
everything goes is ludicrous.

Why not then toss out *all* URI schemes, and just call
everything 'uri:'?!

Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 05:31:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:26 UTC