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