• To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:15:58 +0000
• Cc: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <B8917975.E5E2%patrick.stickler@n...>
• References: <B8917975.E5E2%patrick.stickler@n...>

On Thursday 14 February 2002 12:25, you wrote:

> It should be clear up front what "flavor" of URI you have, and
> whether it does or does not denote some retrievable resource
> or whether it denotes some abstract resource -- or if it is
> in fact the actual resource (consider a data: URI). And that
> should be based on a formal classification of URI schemes and
> URI classes.

I always thought that's what the URN / URL distinction was for, but the W3C 
went and specified namespace URIs instead of URNs. Bastards.

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software  

• References:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>

• Prev by Date: Redefining ComplexType
• Next by Date: Re: Streaming Transformations for XML
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Next by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread