• To: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Un-ask the question (was Re: URIs and Names on the Web)
• From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:10:54 -0700
• Thread-index: AcI2tYUPJRPdfZ+oTEe0sbICKSQMWAACBwiA
• Thread-topic: Un-ask the question (was Re: URIs and Names on the Web)

> I fully agree that abstract "resources" and "namespaces" should have
an
> authoritative description on the web.  It just seems a conceptual
muddle

BTW, you can get meaningful information about a non-http URN on the web
today.  For example, Google search for ISBN:1-558-60622-X returns a few
pages.  If people chose to start publishing comments to either Usenet or
web pages about URN:ISBN:1-558-60622-X, you can be sure that they would
be accessible to anyone who chose to query.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Un-ask the question (was Re: URIs and Names on the Web)
    • From: "Steven Livingstone" <s.livingstone@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: URIs and Names on the Web
• Next by Date: Re: On Schemas, Namespaces and Syntax vs. Semantics (long but worth it) :)
• Previous by thread: (newbie) Formatting DOM-generated XML docs
• Next by thread: RE: Un-ask the question (was Re: URIs and Names on the Web)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread