- From: Clark C. Evans <cce@clarkevans.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:19:57 -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:
> > DEFINE NAMESPACE EQUIVALENCE AS A BYTE-FOR-BYTE COMPARISON
> > OF THE RESOURCE AS RESOLVED *AND* RETRIEVED.
>
> That is horrible: it means processing software is at the mercy of
> document editors who see fit to use URLs that are hard to fetch
> (or downright impossible, like mid: or cid:, if you don't have
> the relevant email message around).
What use would "mid:" or "cid:" have as a namespace name?
I see two common cases:
a) "data:some-unique-text"
and
b) "http:\\some-well-known-and-fetchable-resource"
> Caching just amortizes the extra cost, it
> doesn't eliminate it.
For those people who want both identification *and* retrival;
they can use "http:" For those other individuals who want
just identification, we can use "data:" and avoid the extra
costs. This fits nicely with the you-pay-for-what-you-use
phlisophy. It also does not distort the behavior people
expect when they see an "http:\\" uniform resource *locator*
Best,
Clark
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 21:16:00 UTC