note that I (for one) don't think the particular concerns raised by Keith
need fixing - the description of an URN that Keith seems to have in mind
seems to me to fit well with certain types of URN (such as urn:isbn), but
there seems to me no reason to expect all URNs to behave the same way in
the aspects we are talking about here (whether there exists a
dereferenceable entity to which the URN can be resolved, for instance).
I think using URN is a better solution to the problem the W3C seems to
regard as important than using HTTP URLs for the same purpose.
Harald
--On mandag, juli 08, 2002 10:08:34 -0400 Michael Mealling
<michael(_at_)neonym(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 05:02:11PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
<snip>
Sorry to have not been involved in the disucssion. Vacation and all..
Based on the discussion with Graham I am at a loss as to how to fix
the document to satisfy your concerns. It seems that most of your
concerns are more to do with the entire W3C promoted web architecture
than with anything in particular with this proposal other than the
desire for the individual syntactic elements to be as semantically
free as possible.
Is there anything that can be done to fix this document or are you
opposed to even the intended purpose of it?
-MM
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1
michael(_at_)neonym(_dot_)net | |
http://www.neonym.net