Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it

David Hunter wrote:

> (<aside>Is there any such thing as a relative URN?</aside>)

No, thank Heaven.

> Second, I can't help but notice the following points:
>   1)  The Namespace specification says that the namespace
>       names are just that:  names.  URNs are the perfect
>       fit for this.  It's what they were invented for.

But so are some URI schemes like uuid:.

> To those on the outside, like myself, it seems like most people agreed that
> namespace names were just names, nothing else, just like the spec says, and
> then suddenly the W3C jumped up in the last couple of days and decided that
> the URLs should point to something, and claim that this was the intent all
> along.

As a compromise, it was agreed that namespace names *as such* didn't need
to be dereferenceable.  However, many upcoming specs do define them to
point to something.

>       [S]ome very sloppy work went on in
>       crafting the spec, since it doesn't say what they
>       wanted it to say.

On this I think that all can agree.

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  ||
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           ||
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 12:25:24 UTC