• To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: What is "the Web"
• From: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@a...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:51:36 -0700
• References: <20020426094657.Q6973@w...> <001201c1ed3d$fcb5ded0$887ba8c0@mitchum> <20020426124111.U6973@w...>

I think there's something missing here to make the notion of 'on the Web'
more useful.  Perhaps
 - it *can* be on the web if it can be identified
 - it *is* on the web if it [?? or some representation of it ??] is
identified by a URI, in other words [?? if there is a resource representing
it corresponding to that URI (not a 404?) ??]
 - whether on the web or not, there might be other ways to access it (not
via a URI and GET)

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@a...>
To: "Bill de hÓra" <dehora@e...>
Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@a...>; "'Jonathan Robie'"
<jonathan.robie@d...>; <AndrewWatt2000@a...>;
<michael.h.kay@n...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re:  What is "the Web"


> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:18:21PM +0100, Bill de hÓra wrote:
> > By your definition, can you name something that isn't on the web?
>
> No, because by naming something, you identify it.  And all things that
> are identifiable can be on the Web.

• References:
  • Re: What is "the Web"
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
  • RE: What is "the Web"
    • From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
  • Re: What is "the Web"
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SOAP and the Web
• Next by Date: RE: What is "the Web"
• Previous by thread: Re: What is "the Web"
• Next by thread: RE: What is "the Web"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread