<history> However, my giving in by dropping the term "Universal" for "Uniform" in the IETF arguments, while perhaps pragmatic in allowing the URI spec to get through at all, was in other ways a big mistake. The argument against "Universal" was something like "You can't have the impertinence to say you are developing something universal, which will apply to anything". In fact I should have retorted that actually (a) the whole point was that it *should* be something into which *any* system's identifiers can be mapped and (b) that was not impertinent as it passes the Test of Independent Invention <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html#TOII> as anyone else can map my universal system into theirs, and one can gateway the two URI spaces. But I didn't, and if I had, who knows, maybe the web would have been pushed back on harder by the IETF The universality of the URI is a fundamental aspect of the web architecture. It remains that the benefit of the web is primarily the wide interoperability of this single namespace. </history> On 2007-08 -02, at 09:25, Garret Wilson wrote: > > Right. Thanks. It was a long day. ;) > > Garret > > Hammond, Tony wrote: >>> as URI means "resource identifier" (and a universal one, at that), I >>> >> >> Nope. Not universal. URI is *not* a universal identifier. It's a >> "uniform" >> identifier. Different kettle of fish. >> >> Tony >> >> >>Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 15:32:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:26 UTC