- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 11:40:49 -0400
- To: abrahams@acm.org
- Cc: michaelm@netsol.com, xml-uri@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:25:01AM -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: > Michael Mealling wrote: > > So relative URIs, being non-unique, should be deprecated? > > I'd say they should be discouraged, but deprecation might be too strong. > If we agree they're uninterpreted -- they just happen to have certain > characters in them like periods and slashes -- then the danger of using > them lies in the likelihood of accidental collision, just as if I name > my widely-distributed namespace "foo". Would you rev the Namespace document to say this or just put it in Errata? > > >So I suppose the direct answer to your question is that the scope is the > > >universe of character strings, but that's probably not what you're > > > looking for. > > > > No, that's fine. I was hoping someone would say its the document but > > I kind of figured that wasn't the case... > > Why were you hoping that? Or have you changed your mind, so the question is > irrelevant? I was hoping that we could just suggest that namespaces be given some disambiguator withing the document (i.e. "1", "2". "3") and then have another, new attrribute, bind that document level disambiguator to an 'absoluteURI' (RFC 2396 ABNF production) with _all_ of the semnatics of being a URI... But I think that's probably rather silly. Its just another syntax hack to get around some flawed language in a document... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 11:51:57 UTC