W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

RE: My action item on Moby Dec, issue 14, etc

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:49:43 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B972@HQ5>
To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>

What you contract for is not the name but the 
reliability of operations based on use of the name.

The implication of what Tim wrote (pretty much 
a synopsis of universal naming scheme critique 
from day one), is that the reliability of the 
naming system is as good as the contract is 
enforced.  Not new news nor different from 
Public IDs.  It simply comes down the system 
identifier being as good as the system manager 
is competent or aware.  The web is not above 
the laws of physics or human initiative.

len

From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@sun.com]

/ noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com was heard to say:
| When a server first supplies a representation, and marks it cacheable, I 
| think that is creating a contract that affects future accesses to 
| something. 

It's a pretty loose contract, I think. It says, "If you attempt
another retrieval before the expiry date, it's OK if you get back a
cached representation. If it's not exactly the same as the
representation you'd get if there wasn't one in the cache, I don't
care."
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 11:50:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT