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: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:53:25 -0400
Message-ID: <392AFDD5.24AC5D25@reutershealth.com>
To: Liam Quin <liam@holoweb.net>, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
Liam Quin wrote:

> URLs (specifically) do not guarantee that they will return teh
> same octet stream when accessed each time. Many do not, in fact.

That's true.
 
> Therefore, there is *never* a guarantee that two URLs refer
> to the same resource.  Consider a URL that, when dereferenced,
> returns a random web page.  Or a document that is updated.

Whether these constitute "the same resource" is a matter of viewpoint.
As I keep saying, they certainly don't constitute the same *entity body*
(bunch of bytes with a media type), but they may be viewed as a constant
*resource*.

> The only way to say that two URLs refer to the same thing is
> to download them and look at what you got.  There is nothing else.

And even that proves nothing.
 
> If you do this, there is no long a problem with a relative URL,
> because all that matters is the resource to which that URL refers,
> not the byte sequence in the URL itself.

Well and good, but that's *not* what the Namespace Rec says.

-- 

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 Tuesday, 23 May 2000 17:53:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC