- From: Clark C. Evans <cce@clarkevans.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:45:15 -0400 (EDT)
- To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>, xml-uri@w3.org
On Sat, 3 Jun 100, John Cowan wrote:
> Larry Masinter scripsit:
> > > Au contraire. The "data:" scheme is the only one for which it is *known*
> > > that if two URIs are different, the resources are different too.
> >
> > data:,abcd and data:text/plain,abcd are different, but identify the
> > 'same' resource.
>
> Oops, you are right. That's a slip-up on my part.
Yes, but its not fatal killer for the idea. Let's just
introduce a new scheme (similar to data:) that does not
have this problem -- call it "xmlns:".
1. The "body" of this new namespace can then
be one of two things, (a) an URI reference
or (b) reverse.dns.package
2. Comparision of the URI is defined character-by-character
without absolutization of any contained URI reference.
3. The "URI reference" possibility for the body is
deprechiated, and absolutization/resolving of any
existing documents with a "URI reference" body is
also deprechiated (to stop the quacking).
4. The URI identifies a namespace, the identification
function is one-to-one and onto (injective and surjective).
5. If a xmlns:prefix="attval" is not a valid "xmlns:" URI,
then the attribute value is considered as the "body" of
a valid "xmlns:" URI.
Thoughts?
Clark
Received on Sunday, 4 June 2000 15:40:06 UTC