- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:57:28 +0200
- To: ldodds@ingenta.com, fielding@eBuilt.com, a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk
- Cc: www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@ingenta.com] > Sent: 16 November, 2001 12:38 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere); fielding@eBuilt.com; > a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk > Cc: www-talk@w3.org; uri@w3.org > Subject: RE: What is at the end of the namespace? > > > > 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. > > Won't its meaning be implied by the context of its usage? Yeah, right, like the context of namespace URI implies the opaque identifier of a global naming partition, not something to be dereferenced... If what you suggest is true, then we can toss out all URI prefixes such as http: mailto: ftp: etc. because, after all, their meaning will be implied by context, eh? I.e. intead of having ftp://foo.abc.com http:/foo.abc.com I can just use uri://foo.abc.com and whether I need HTTP or FTP access will be clear from context, eh? Sorry. Nope. ;-) Patrick
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 08:57:44 UTC