Re: httpRange-14 , what's the problem

At 04:21 PM 7/17/02 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>Then the argument is a waste of time anyway, since it doesn't prevent
>RDF from having to deal with those resources that are not documents.

I think I'm missing something here:  RDF treats all URIs (and URI 
references) without regard for the URI scheme, so if there's a problem here 
I don't think it's with RDF.

The only issue for RDF that I'm aware of is how to deal with URI references 
containing fragment identifiers.  (See my earlier proposal/note to this 
list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0020.html)

I'm posting this note because I suspect the debate may be confusing a 
couple of (mostly) distinct issues (and I suspect I'm as guilty as anyone 
of propagating the confusion in the above-cited message in the final 
paragraph).

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>