- 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
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... Best, Clark
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 20:55:06 UTC