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

RE: URI Opacity Principle (was: Re: use of fragments as names is irresponsible)

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:00:59 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE0D@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Bill de hOra'" <dehora@eircom.net>, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

You mean you don't object to the object, 
or was a bandage wound around the wound?
Is the dump so full we will have to refuse
more refuse?  When I saw the tear in the 
web, I shed a tear, but should I intimate 
this to my intimate friends?

Overloading identical syntax.  Natural 
language does it and so did the web 
designers.

We could lead if we could get the lead out.

len


From: Bill de hOra [mailto:dehora@eircom.net]

The trick is of course that that individual URIs get 
used for both purposes (ie for RDF, and GET).
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 10:01:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT