• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa ce
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:23:46 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3D3C3DC1.6080002@t...>

Tim Bray wrote:
> Joe English wrote:
> There is for URLs, but not for URNs.  There are those who claim this
> is an advantage; but in any case it is certain that there are lots of
> things in the world which are URIs but are not de jure nor de facto
> dereferencable.  Deal with it. -Tim

Deal with it?  Come on, Tim!

We've been dealing with this for years, and namespaces are a still
time-wasting mess that gives XML a lousy reputation for inscrutable
specs about which no one agrees.  This may not seem difficult to deal
with on a case-by-case basis, but it's made the general case damn near
impossible.


-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
• Next by Date: Will DDDS save us from URI madness?
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
• Next by thread: XML to XML using XSL: help
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread