- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 100 03:54:57 -0400 (EDT)
- To: liam@holoweb.net (Liam Quin)
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
Liam Quin scripsit: > Finally, it would make sense to abandon the idea of having a URI in there > at all, and use a formally defined name, preferably one that does not > start with "http:" in any examples :-) Then you lose the advantage of leveraging the existing infrastructure to help you assign a unique name. Leaving off the scheme doesn't do it: one person may be permitted to assign "http://example.com" URIs, and another person be permitted to asign "ftp://example.com" URIs within the example.com organization. With no scheme names, they will step on one another, or need yet another local convention. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org Yes, I know the message date is bogus. I can't help it. --me, on far too many occasions
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 03:31:13 UTC