W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful?

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:32:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3922C985.5BFCE922@reutershealth.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> >The root of the trouble, IMHO, is that the problem is essentially
> >moral/aesthetic, not technical at all.
> If you mean moral in the sense of should we do the right thing even if it
> costs us some toil, then I suppose it is.

And further: should we abide by our promises even if we regret them afterwards
(as in the Grimm's fairy tale "The Frog-Prince").  That is the essential
argument for the "literal" interpretation; that even if it seems undesirable now,
it is what we (the W3C) proclaimed as the Right Thing.

> If you mean aesthetic in the
> sense of having little practical use, then I would dispute that.

I don't mean that.  Simplicity, clarity, unity, and the like are
quintessential aesthetic properties: a work of art (and in one sense
the Web is a giant work of art with millions of contributors) is well
done or badly done insofar as it has these properties or doesn't have them.

> Using URIs gives namespaces incredible leverage.

I agree.  However, I can't agree with your earlier claim that the
"literal" interpretation is inconsistent.


Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2000 12:32:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC