Re: the state of ldp-patch, and a procedural proposal

On 10/3/13 7:03 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2013, at 00:48, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/13 6:13 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> Because "resource" is the problem. It will soon be yanked out of all literature for which it serves to simple confuse rather than enlighten. I believe that effort is actually in progress.
>> Meant to say:
>>
>> Because "resource" is the problem. It will soon be yanked out of all literature for which it serves to *simply* confuse rather than enlighten. I believe that effort is actually in progress.
> Sorry but what does all this conversation have to do with PATCH, which is an issue I am interested in,
> and that I'd like debated seriously?
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>
Sorry, I was just correcting a typo in my response to the detour about 
what HTTP URIs denote. I guess the subject heading could have been altered.

Note: I see a threaded view when I look at these posts. Thus, I reply to 
threads which doesn't always come through if the view is simply by topic 
etc..


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen