Paul has volunteered (was Re: Overloaded URIs must GO!)

Hunter, David dhunter at
Mon May 31 17:22:50 BST 1999

David Megginson writes:
> I've made several postings on this point.  See
> for details.  The summary is that people have the rights to virtual
> Internet space based on host/domain, branch/path, protocol, and time;
> you cannot leave the protocol part out (I don't have FTP rights on
> Sprynet, for example).

I agree.  But from reading the previous postings, the point seems to be "we
need to use a protocol, and HTTP is the only one we've got at the moment, so
we should use it for our URIs".  This is the part that sounds like a hack to
me.  If we need a protocol for our namespace URIs, then we should have some
kind of namespace protocol.

Of course, I realize that this is a bit pie-in-the-sky,
the-way-things-should-work kind of thinking; even if we do get a namespace
protocol, it isn't going to happen this afternoon, and people still need to
develop for the time being.  (One of your previous posts said something to
the effect of "we'll see how things are closer to the end of summer"; I'll
echo that sentiment as well.)  I'm just worried that some day there WILL be
a namespace protocol, but nobody will use it because they're already using
HTTP, just because it works...

But, I'll let the issue rest, for a while.  :-)  <aside>Mostly because I'm
STILL in over my head.</aside>

David Hunter
david.hunter at
MediaServ Information Architects

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list