Against the idea of the web? (Score 1)

With my very limited understanding of the W3C and such, the the netscape blog post seems very anti-W3C ... as Daniel Glazman commented on the blog post

"cool URIs never change". This sentence has been on W3C's site for ages, constantly repeated by W3C staff in Web conferences.

However, it's not like the author of the post didn't have valid reasoning. That IS a lot of bandwidth, why should netscape be made to foot the bill when they don't get anything in return? No one sees any of their pretty ads when the users' machines just fetch the DTD -- netscape gets nothing off of hosting it ... beyond the ability to feel good about themselves because they keep RSS 0.91 stable for everyone else. I didn't even know netscape hosted this until I read the blog post ... Not having much experience with it, this seems like the exact same issue I had with the entirety of how semantic web stuff works: Lots of machine readable documents must be fetched from many different sources in order for one service to work. W3C says that this should work cause documents don't go away, but generally this is not the case -- companies go bankrupt, services change ownership (and domain). I feel like someone needs to work out (and use in practice) a system of distributing static documents like this consistently over lots of places so when one source dies or changes location -- the services that rely on it don't just stop.