• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:01:12 -0800
• References: <200202181422.OAA04464@p...> <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05573B41@r.... com> <008201c1b82d$a0d2e760$0301a8c0@n...> <1014005493.943.230.camel@l...> <00ab01c1b832$94ce2ce0$0301a8c0@n...> <200202181028.KAA00561@p...> <010301c1b888$7a86c440$0301a8c0@n...> <200202181641.g1IGfGj28557@d...> <200202181659.QAA10641@p...> <3C71464E.766BB5AB@a...>

Please change the name of this thread because I don't want REST to get
the blame for namespaces' confusing usage of URIs. ;)
 
 Paul Prescod

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Traditional RPC
• Next by Date: Re: Traditional RPC
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Next by thread: RE: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread