At 03:35 04/11/12, David Orchard wrote: > >I strongly prefer http URIs. I find the W3C Web Arch is sufficiently >motivating. > >I haven't seen IETF documents that directly refute the Web Arch advocacy >of http URIs for namespace names. I don't recall them sending in any >comments on this during the Web Arch Last Call, so that seems like >implicit endorsement.
(just for the record) The IETF (which in the case of liaisons means the IAB) was asked for comments, and sent some comments.
>If there's some IETF vs W3C brouhaha on URNS vs >http URIs, let them sort it out.
There is definitely a tendency (by at least some people) in the W3C for http URIs. There also seems to be some tendency (by at least some people) in the IETF for URNs. But I definitely wouldn't call this a 'brouhaha'.
>And if the IETF won't help with http: URI assignment, I bet the W3C would.
I cannot guarantee anything, but I guess we would at least favorably consider such a request.
>I idly wonder if you could use the RFC HTTP for the ns.
As such, that won't work, because there isn't a single canonical (http) URI for RFCs. To take RFC 2396 as an example, there is at least http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt and ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2396.txt. There are also various mirrors.
Another issue is that the directory containing the RFC is already really huge, adding more files in there doesn't seem like such a good idea. But of course the idea that the RFC is available from the namespace location is a very good one, and can easily be realized once there is a http namespace.
Regards, Martin.
