- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:47:59 -0400
- To: abrahams@acm.org
- CC: michaelm@netsol.com, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote: > For the sake of argument only, let's combine that with the proposal that all forms > of URIs other than data: should be deprecated. We're then in almost exactly the > same place we'd be in if we just say that URIs in xmlns attributes are uninterpreted > and just taken literally. In other words, taking namespace names literally and > moving the burden of interpretation onto another attribute (or several) achieves > what I think folks are trying to achieve with "data:,". For comparison, yes. But using "data:" preserves the resource-nature (as in Buddha-nature) of namespaces, making RDF statements about them possible. > By the way, I think that "data:" as a URI scheme [all too easy to confuse schemes > and schemas, alas] would be valuable no matter what happens with namespaces. It > provides something not there now, namely, the effect of a literal in a programming > language. Are you under the impression that I just invented it? ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2397.txt -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 12:48:43 UTC