• To: 'Joe English' <jenglish@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:06:58 -0500

If you believe that, then you haven't been paying 
attention.  This issue is the black hole of WWW 
architecture.

See W3C TAG thread, 

"RE: httpRange-14 , what's the problem"

Fashion is, IMO, not the way to design interoperable 
systems.  

len


From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...]

Bullard, Claude L wrote:

> It is not healthy to be an ostrich among the coyotes.
>
> Is or is not a URI dereferenceable?  If you say,
> it depends, you have your head in the sand.

I would say that a URL is dereferencable, unequivocably.
It locates a resource.

But URLs are out of fashion.  The current mode
is to Identify resources, not Locate them.  URIs are
used in several W3C specs -- RDF and XMLNS being the
most prominent -- as opaque, atomic identifiers
that have no semantics other than identity.

If you say that a URI must be dereferencable just
because it looks like a URL, then you haven't been
paying attention.

• Follow-Ups:
  • URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
• Next by Date: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• Previous by thread: FW: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
• Next by thread: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread