Tim Bray wrote:
...
If a new URI scheme is defined, it needs to state what it identifies, and
how it is resolved. If it identifies an HTTP resource, and resolution is
done via HTTP, then it seems to me you don't need it.
Actually, no. There are lots of identifiers that do not have a
"resolution" requirement.
Correct. I was sloppy.
However, in the context of HELD it stays true, as the identifiers
*clearly* are intended to be resolvable (as they are used for location
requests, and the whole document would be totally pointless if there was
no way to resolve them).
This has happened, usually due to clueless implementors. The most
famous case is the DTD URIs appearing in the HTML <!DOCTYPE>, which
certain developers who will remain nameless tried to retrieve every
time they parsed an HTML page. Surprise surprise, it didn't work.
Right. RSS vs Netscape is another example.
Using public URIs for DTDs introduces a single point of failure. Using
public URIs for XML namespaces do not, because processors do not *need*
to resolve them.
It's a real risk. Any identifier that can be used to retrieve
something will so be used, whether that's appropriate or not, and
that's a risk we have to work into our plans.
Correct. That being said, do we have any evidence that URIs that appear
as XML namespace names (and *only* there) have caused this kind of problem?
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf