Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mike Brown wrote: > > Well there are many other examples of syntax rules for values that are > supposed to be unique, and each ruleset is tailored for generating IDs > suited for a certain purpose. For example, there are competing syntax rules > for: > - the values of ID-type attributes in XML documents These expand into URIs per the XPointer specification. > - Message-ID values in email headers These are URIs using the mid: scheme > - language 'tags' like fr-CA and x-klingon ??? > - the name or location of a resource -- a URI > > I do not see a good reason that URI syntax had to be the basis for > identifying namespaces. It should not be a surprise that confusion ensues > from this choice, since URIs were designed for a different purpose. They are > *not* generic identifiers; they are intended to be used to identify the > names and locations of resources. Whether the location or resource exists > and/or is accessible is irrelevant, as has been mentioned repeatedly. But > that doesn't change the fact that the URI identifies a location. Come on, is > something so abstract as a namespace really a *resource* that can have a > *location*? yep. A URI reference precisely identifies a location within the abstract URI space. A namespace name is no more, nor less, abstract than a URI reference. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
|
