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

Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal

From: Clark C. Evans <cce@clarkevans.com>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
cc: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>, david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk, xml-uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005272053550.16221-100000@clarkevans.com>
On Sat, 27 May 100, John Cowan wrote:
> Better yet, just agree that the namespace name *always* 
> implies a data URI encapsulating it.

I like your "data:" proposal.  However, it does not really
help us with the "absolutizing" debate, does it?

> If accessing two URIs retrieves the same entity body, it proves nothing
> [about the two URIs identifying the same resource]: they may have the
> same content by coincidence.
> If accessing two URIs retrieves a different entity body, it still proves
> nothing: they may identify a single time-varying resource.

This is a great argument why a URL makes for a bad URN.  

However, is this practical in our context?  I mean, is 
there any other serious reason for retrival other than 
for getting a schema or human description or catalog of 
resources for the namespace?  In each of these examples 
none of the theoritical problems occur...


Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 20:55:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:59 UTC