• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: HTTP is
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:47:20 -0400
• In-reply-to: <20020729180631.GLHF24567.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@rwcrwbc70>

7/29/2002 2:06:31 PM, jborden@a... wrote:

>
>In any case suppose we agree with TimBL i.e. 
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html ... it seems to push the 
rathole onto what a fragment identifier identifies ... sigh. The more so-
called solutions to these issues I've seen, the more questions are 
raised. 
>

Speaking of ratholes, doesn't TimBL's position imply that namespace names 
should URI *references* -- the URI itself would point to a document, and 
some #fragment thingie would refer to the abstract namespace that the 
document discusses?  

Forgive me if I misinterpret this ... anyway, that piece by TimBL seems 
like required reading for anyone who cares about this issue.  I for one I 
do find notion that URIs refer to nice concrete bundles of bits on the 
Internet rather comforting!

• References:
  • RE: HTTP is
    • From: jborden@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Previous by thread: RE: HTTP is
• Next by thread: RE: HTTP is
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread