Re: <SIGH> (was: Re: date in URN)

Karen R. Sollins (
Mon, 26 Jun 1995 16:22:51 -0400

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 16:22:51 -0400
Message-Id: <>
From: "Karen R. Sollins" <>
In-Reply-To: <> (message from Peter Deutsch on Sun, 25 Jun 1995 12:38:41 -0400)
Subject: Re: <SIGH> (was: Re: date in URN)

Hi Peter,

   'Tis many a slip, 'tween the cup and the lips...

   [ I wrote: ]
   .  .  .
   } Depending upon how we do it, I think dereferencing does
   } mean we need a human friendly part for when humans must
   } select these things. For dereferencing, we obviously want
   } to focus on the mechanical processing capabilities and
   } might be willing to sacrifice readibility here if it makes
   } it work.

   I of course meant to say ""For **comparison**, we obviously want
   to focuse on the mechanical processing capabilities..."

   Sorry if this caused any confusion...

					   - peterd

Not a problem - actually, I also expect that most of the job of
dereferencing had better be mechanical too, so I had no problem with
your statement.