Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace

On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 03:45:15PM -0400, Clark C. Evans wrote:
>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

Don't use DNS names. They violate the persistence requirement....

>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).

All URIs have this quality so why not use them?

>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?

Overly engineerd to satisfy a perception instead of the actual
truth WRT to URIs and their properties...

-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 Monday, 5 June 2000 10:21:07 UTC