Henry S. Thompson scripsit:
> Sorry to be dense, but I just don't see how having a scheme name
> registry will solve, or even ameliorate, the interoperable
> implementation of scheme semantics.
Nor do I; that's not the reason for having a registry.
> At the end of the day, all we
> have is natural language documentation to define scheme semantics, and
> the obvious place to put such documentation is at the scheme namespace
> URI. Are you saying that scheme registration should _require_ scheme
> semantics documentation?
Maybe so. But what registration permits is compact scheme names;
arbitrary QNames with local declarations of a URI are certainly not compact.
--
You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan
than the trees and all other acyclic http://www.reutershealth.com
graphs; you have a right to be here. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--DeXiderata by Sean McGrath
