Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> No. Unless you build a means and tell the parser to invoke > it, an FPI is a dumb string. My point is that if FPIs were used for the sorts of things that XML technologies use URI for, that there would be a standard means for lookup and "dereferencing". It would just come about naturally. Same thing if specs mandated URNs rather than URIs. There would have been systems for resolving URNs in place by now. Nothing that is treated as a global identifier remains a "dumb string" for long. Nothing. > A URzed is always dereferenceable. If we accept that, then what > we call it and the semantic issues go away. Wow. That's confidence. For my part, I think there will be plenty of semantic issues left even if one were to declare that a URI is "always dereferenceable". BTW, I personally don't have a problem with such a declaration. It's just that I'm not entirely sure what it means. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/ The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393 Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/li brary/x-think11.html
|
