Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view)

> But why do this when the binary decision is what we actually _need_,
> to satisfy the goals of the namespace rec., and when literal
> comparison of absolute URIs enables this to be something that we can
> get?

Because you can never guarantee this in a decentralized system. As I
pointed out, this has *nothing* to do with URIs but everything to do with
using decentralized names that support indirection. URIs allow up to code
these names up which no other syntax does.

> The farther we move from a unique string approach the more kinds of
> failures are possible, and the less we meet the _very simple_
> requirements for namespaces. A "forbid" solution has none of these
> errors, but kills old documents. A "literal" solution is confusing if
> you expect absolutization, but is also consistent with respect to
> identity.

What you are really saying here is that we should enforce a single URI
space, call it "ns:" which has certain properties like not use relative
names and not support indirection. As I have mentioned before, this is a
GUID. That is a valid thought but please keep it separate from whether URI
syntax is fine or not.

It's all about choosing your URI space.

Henrik

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 11:36:03 UTC