Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Brennan wrote: > >... > > This is a minor point, but it points to a more important point. The biggest > fly in the ointment, here, is the common use of "http:" URIs that don't > point to anything. I personally consider that to be very bad practice. I > don't think we can achieve consensus unless we agree that abusing > well-defined URI schemes for abstract URIs is a bad practice. If it's > abstract and does not point to anything, use a URN. From a usability point of view I'm on your side. And in fact I tried to register an abstract URN namespace for XML namespaces back when it was hard to do that. But consider that once you've made the choice to make a URI "abstract" there is no way to go back. You can't just pop up a web page and change your mind. If RDDL or something else takes over the universe you are stuck. Paul Prescod
|
