W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

[URIEquivalence-15] Choosing and comparing URIs

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:05:56 -0600
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <1044918356.2345.138.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

All are invited to take a look at...

  Choosing and comparing URIs
  a presentation on tag issue uriequiv (and irieverywhere?)
  Dan Connolly, Feb 2002
  http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/02cacuri/all.htm

  Take-home points
      * If you mean the same thing, refer to it the same way.
      * When choosing names for distinct things, choose clearly distinct
        names
      * Absolute URIs* are the basis of comparison 
      * Clients/consumers should not usurp servers'/providers' naming
        rights

I think this discharges my action...

"[DC slide presentation on URI equivalence]
[...]
Action DC: Pretty up slides and publish."
 -- http://www.w3.org/2003/02/07-tagmem-irc#T18-08-38

It's sorta in response to the draft finding
on this issue. That finding is OK on many of the
nitty-gritty details, but I found it misleading
on the big picture. It occured to me that
we should think not just about reading/writing
about web architecture, but also
presenting/teaching/learning it.

I prettied it up enough to serve as meeting materials
(what I actually presented was half-marked-up-ascii
composed in an insomniac frenzy the night before,
somewhere in
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Feb/
though I can't say where exactly due to 'connection
refused' problem.)

There are still some @@s. If folks expected those
to be fixed, maybe I'm not done.

There was some feedback as I presented it; I haven't
integrated that yes.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 18:24:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT