ian at hixie.ch
Sat Aug 23 03:43:56 PDT 2008
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > Again you're confusing HTTP URLs with URIs.
> > >
> > > Using URIs as identifiers allows lots of identification schemes
> > > other than HTTP, in particular ones that are not based on DNS, or
> > > that use DNS, but include a timestamp to address the concern of
> > > "losing" a domain name (tag URI scheme).
> > Sure, but most people use HTTP URIs anyway for namespaces.
> > You can use any URI or any system you want with class="". The key is
> > just to make it unique enough that clashes won't happen. In practice,
> > names like "dc:title" are actually quite unique enough. But people can
> > use much more unique ones if desired, all the way to full URIs.
> Yes, but unless they actually do use URIs, there's always the potential
> of clashes. They may be unlikely, but they are possible -- that's one of
> the reasons we have URIs, remember?
Worrying about clashes between "obviously unique" class names like
"variable.example.org" or "dublincore:title" is like worrying about
clashes between hash codes. Sure, they can happen, but unless someone is
being malicious it is really not worth worrying about it.
Put it this way:
Using URIs is definitely a problem; people invent entire declaration
syntaxes to route around them (c.f. XML namespaces).
Using unambiguous class names like Java does is maybe a problem due to
Unless we can demonstrate that the clashes are more of a problem than the
use of URIs, we would be foolish to put our eggs in the URI basket.
One good way to see whether it really is a problem is to look at the Java
ecosystem. Have clashes been a big problem there?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg