Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 17:05, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > henrik.martensson@b... (Henrik Martensson) writes: > >I would be interested in seeing your take on a multiended link that has > >no collection of exposed URIs. The XHTML 2.0 img element does not > >qualify, I believe, because, well, it does have a collection of > >attributes, and their values are exposed. > > This point is worth addressing, whatever the context. > > I have no qualms about exposing URLs. People are familiar with URLs, > and the notion of pointing to something using a URL is well-understood. Agreed. (And thank you for writing "URL" and not "URI".) > > I draw the line at exposing URIs when used as identifiers for purposes > other than retrieval. This seems to be the W3C's universal escape > hatch, whether for namespaces, RDF, or XLink. Unfortunately, the > combination of opacity, confusion with URLs, and cross-referencing > difficulty as their number increases seems to produce as much chaos as > it resolves. Agreed. > > The distinction between URLs and URIs seems to be one worth emphasizing > in practice, even if the standards bodies are doing their best to blur. Very much agreed. /Henrik
|
