• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: RE: HTTP is
• From: jborden@a...
• Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 19:10:19 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Mike,
> 7/29/2002 2:06:31 PM, jborden@a... wrote:
> 
> >
> >In any case suppose we agree with TimBL i.e. 
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html ... it seems to push the 
> rathole onto what a fragment identifier identifies ... sigh. The more so-
> called solutions to these issues I've seen, the more questions are 
> raised. 
> >
> 
> Speaking of ratholes, doesn't TimBL's position imply that namespace names 
> should URI *references* -- the URI itself would point to a document, and 
> some #fragment thingie would refer to the abstract namespace that the 
> document discusses?  
> 
> Forgive me if I misinterpret this ... anyway, that piece by TimBL seems 
> like required reading for anyone who cares about this issue.  I for one I 
> do find notion that URIs refer to nice concrete bundles of bits on the 
> Internet rather comforting!
> 

Yes, it *is* a problem for many namespace names, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0320.html ... I'm glad that this gives you a warm and fuzzy :-)

Jonathan

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: HTTP is
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread