• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs harmful
• From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:51:30 -0600 (MDT)
• In-reply-to: <007101c231ef$0f25de80$fe193044@tbp1> "from Thomas B. Passin atJul 22, 2002 10:16:59 pm"

Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> It would probably have been better if the W3C had said that, if you want to
> have a pure identifier that is not intended to give network access to a
> resource, then use the w3c-ndi: scheme ("W3C Non-dereferenceable Identifer")
> or some such, and to have issued an RFC that specified exactly those
> semantics.

"Non-dereferenceable identifier" would be an oxymoron, according to some,
and depending on the definition of dereference, I would agree! :)

   - Mike
____________________________________________________________________________
  mike j. brown                   |  xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/
  denver/boulder, colorado, usa   |  resume: http://skew.org/~mike/resume/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs harmful
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Java - to - XML and XML-to - Java problem
• Next by Date: Using templates with SaxTransformerFactory
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce
• Next by thread: Re: URIs harmful
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread