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

Re: Irony heaped on irony

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 08:48:09 +0100
Message-ID: <000101bfc6fb$5e691860$08e581c2@brownell.org>
To: "John Aldridge" <john.aldridge@informatix.co.uk>, <xml-dev@xml.org>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
The "XML Namespaces" specification is quite clear that the
purpose of a namespace "Universal Resource IDENTIFIER" is
identification, not location.

Were the purpose of those namespace URIs to be location
(as in:  dereference to get a schema) then the spec would
have used a "Universal Resource LOCATOR".

URIs are very fit for the purpose of identification.  And
that's the task/purpose identified in the namespace spec.

There's a clear line between identifying something ("my auto,
which has been stolen" -- it's got a Vehicle IDENTIFICATION
number [VIN] too!) and locating it.

- Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@informatix.co.uk>
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>; <xml-dev@xml.org>;
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Irony heaped on irony

> At 14:43 25/05/00 +0200, David Brownell wrote:
> >It also appears that some folk have decided to use the namespace
> >bug (above) as a tool to restart that dereferencing debate.  That really
> >doesn't help lead to resolutions.
> That's me (amongst others).  I think, however, that it _does_ help lead to
> a resolution.  The only way to decide what properties you want an NSURI to
> have is to have some idea how you want to use it.
> In fact, this has been my biggest problem with the whole debate -- it's
> been focused on some abstract concept of "rightness", and not "fitness for
> purpose".
> If we can agree on the purpose of the namespace URI, it's hardly
> that we can't agree on its specification.
> --
> Cheers,
> John
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 06:14:02 UTC

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