• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Subject: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:02:38 -0600
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=aplvcyqqulwyEiLqrUoxfGsefS92TvGOM8arF2LoLdVs8kcRefuv++HusKpKuxdDjiv5vsobVJh3v3+JaGRNUUiuFim+1oKdTedQBUACue4a+dQh9qE6L8Fce+RmTisnYaxhjSXGsblE1Av9DROqCYbF9q8FMuH4p57vcQhVzNM=
• In-reply-to: <43a04c64.66a2114a.7ca9.5747SMTPIN_ADDED@m...>
• References: <cc159a4a0512140826k25cd9c80k31a4a3fd40b5b562@m...> <43a04c64.66a2114a.7ca9.5747SMTPIN_ADDED@m...>

On 12/14/05, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote:
> > Sure, but I don't see how any of that relates to my proposal?
>
> It wasn't intended to. Threads can get entangled. IIRC your posts (Peter)
> have been advocating a very concrete use of URIs as (effectively) things you
> can ask for on the web. I'm fine with that. It's the metaphysical use of
> URIs to identify non-computer things that I have problems with.

Got'cha.  You had posted that in reply to me, but yes, the thread does
sort of jump all over the place...

--
Peter Hunsberger

• References:
  • Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Best Practice for URI construction?
• Next by Date: RE: how to use xml:base and relative URLs with SAX/Java?
• Previous by thread: RE: Best Practice for URI construction?
• Next by thread: Re: Best Practice for URI construction?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread