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 

We could lead if we could get the lead out.


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:36 UTC