 |
 |
This is a long argument that's been going on in other communities for a long time, Mike. I can see both sides. Jonathan Mike Taylor wrote: > Jonathan Rochkind writes: > > > > Take, for instance, DOIs. What do you see in the wild? Do you ever > > > > see info:uris (except in OpenURLs)? If you don't see > > > > http://dx.doi.org/ URIs you generally see doi:10... URIs. It seems > > > > like having http and info URIs would *have* to be fine, since > > > > info:uris *not being dereferenceable* are far less useful (I won't go > > > > so far as 'useless') on the web, which is where all this is happening. > > > > > > What on earth does dereferencing have to do with this? > > > > > > We're talking about an identifier. > > > > Because the ability to de-reference seems to be the main reason to use > > an HTTP URI as an identifier, and the main reason that some people > > prefer an HTTP URI as an identifier to an info: URI. > > That looks like a plain and simple confusion to me. Identifiers and > addresses are two quite different things. That they happen to be > expressed in similar or even identical syntax is an accident of > history. Surely our experiences with XML namespaces (which do not > "exist") have taught us that? > > _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________ > /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk > )_v__/\ "Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! > Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!" -- Klingon > Programming Mantra > >