• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Excellent IETF BCP on XML
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 21:31:18 +0000
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1022-38E00F9AFE5D11D6B3280003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• References: <r01050400-1022-38E00F9AFE5D11D6B3280003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

Simon St.Laurent wrote,
> Questioning URIs right now seems to get few new answers.  I've
> concluded that URI references are severely limited abbreviations,
> while the opacity of URIs is useful in some contexts but a liability
> in others.
>
> Given "core principles" like this:
<snip/>

Or findings like this,

  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7

section 3 "Dereferencing URIs is safe" without mentioning that "safe" is 
used there in the sense of RFC 2616, rather than rather than in the 
more general sense that the dereferencer won't get hurt.

Cheers,


Miles

• References:
  • RE: Excellent IETF BCP on XML
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Can anyone shed light on this issue?
• Next by Date: RE: Excellent IETF BCP on XML
• Previous by thread: RE: Excellent IETF BCP on XML
• Next by thread: Re: Excellent IETF BCP on XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread