W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2003

RE: resources and URIs

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 17 Jul 2003 10:13:35 -0500
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1058454814.2425.475.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 09:40, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Well... I wish I understood the case for it being so wrong... 'illegal' in
> Tim's words.
> 
> To be frank... I don't understand it... and don't see the need for the
> constraint... and I know I'm addressing a champion of the 'minimal
> constraint' principle.
> 
> Last time you and I spoke about it you spoke in less black and white terms
> and about an 'economic' rationale - it is more 'costly' done this way...

yes.

>  but
> I have failed to recreate that discussion... did you write it down anywhere?

umm... I don't think so.

Sandro and I and others have written some relevant stuff
in/near http://esw.w3.org/topic/HashURI

but I haven't actually figured out how to write down my
intuitions about economic justification for HashURIs.

> Equally, if some argument has convinced you to take a more absolute stance
> I'd be interested to know what it is/was.

Nope.

> FWIW you will also see use of http scheme URI (without fragments) in SOAP1.2
> Part 2 recommendation [1] to name features and properties.
> 
> Stuart
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapfeatspec

p.s. your mailer doesn't do threading. That's a pain.
Any chance I could talk you into switching to a mailer
that does?
http://cr.yp.to/immhf/thread.html

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 11:13:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:31 GMT