- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:48:22 -0400
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Cc: michaelm@netsol.com, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 04:35:44PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Michael Mealling wrote: > > My point exactly! So if you want to use that URI as your namespace name > > then whether or not its internal scheme is about mailboxes doesn't > > matter. Its a perfectly valid name for a namespace (sans the persistence > > requirement). > > However, it makes it impossible to distinguish between the resource which is > the namespace and the resource which is a document or a mailbox or a telnet > interaction. Then don't do that.... > My approach assigns a distinct URI to every namespace by > distinguishing between the namespace *name* (a string which happens to have > the syntax of a URI *reference*) and the URI which identifies the namespace, > instead of demanding that they be the same. By sticking "data:," in front of it? Nothing about the 'data' scheme makes this any different... Now if it were in a different attribute with different semantics for what you could use something in that attribute for, that would make sense. -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 Friday, 2 June 2000 16:59:33 UTC