- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:57:37 -0700
- To: <xml-uri@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
> I believe that the consensus was that the rec means exactly what it says, > that NS names are names that use URI syntax. Taken in context with your two other recent mails on this list [2][3], it seems to me that you by saying that it is not a URI are really saying that you don't believe people will dereference the URI or not. I won't contest whether you believe in deferencing or not or believe in the robustness of what you might find after dereferencing but *for the sake of namespaces* I also don't think that it actually makes any difference. A URI *is* an identifier and as distributed identifier, it is as good as any. I take it that you agree with this when you say that it has URI syntax. In fact, this is very much what we have written in the proposal that David Turner sent out the other day [1]. This proposal clarifies that whether you want to compare the namespace identifier, whether you want to dereference it, or whether you want to send it to a search engine are all ways that you *might* use it but the namespace spec certainly doesn't force you to do any of that. I think this might be what surprises people about the proposed wording in [1] - it deliberately doesn't say how to use the identifier. ...or are you saying something else? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, mailto:frystyk@microsoft.com [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0406.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0494.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0495.html
Received on Saturday, 10 June 2000 19:59:05 UTC