- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 16:28:57 -0400
- To: "James Tauber" <JTauber@bowstreet.com>, "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
Yes, a hierarchy of XML files on the web will of course work. You might find though that as a scalable replicated system the DNS has had many years of engineering put in! :) Talk to Paul Mockapetris! In fact, discuss the whole thing in the appropriate IETF fora if they still exist. We can also do W3C stuff in this area if it is necessary. Larry Masinter has proposed we cover the URI area -- we will have an interest group at least for the time being according to plan A. Tim -----Original Message----- From: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com> To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>; xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org> Date: Saturday, May 20, 2000 3:35 PM Subject: RE: Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nem es considered harmful? >> FPIs now allow delegation mechanisms, so nothing prevents us >> from setting up a bunch of FPI root servers that know how to delegate down >the > FPI tree. All that's really needed is a simple server-to-server >> protocol, a well-known port, and some commitment. > >My early FPI-resolution proposals envisaged a separate protocol but then it >occurred to me that by achieving the delegation via SGML Open catalogs, >catalogs could be referenced by URL so no dedicated protocol was needed. > >James >
Received on Saturday, 20 May 2000 16:27:06 UTC