Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[Sorry for the formatting of my posts; I'm on a web-based mail client today, and am stuck with the "response before the mail" format...] I can't say that "architectural conformance" is too strong an argument, yet. I'm *willing* to be convinced of this point, but I'm not convinced yet. (I'm tempted to ask "Is the web that strongly architected?", but I'm afraid to, because I seem to recall *that* being discussed here ad nauseum as well...) So I'll ask this instead: What is it about the "architecture of the web" that would be broken, hampered, or less elegant, if we used something other than URIs for namespace names? -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan To: dhunter@v... Cc: xml-dev@l... Sent: 7/25/2002 11:57 AM Subject: Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method David Hunter scripsit: > So what are the other benefits of using URI for namespace names, that I'm > missing? Architectural conformance. When you want to name something on the Web, you use a URI; that's one of the things that makes the Web. > Do people have these kinds of problems with Java package names? Probably not. Maybe there should be an URN type for them? There is already one for SGML/XML public identifiers.
|
