W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2000

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-daigle-uri-std-00.txt

From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:33:11 -0400
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000906213311.E19448@bailey.dscga.com>
Hi Simon.... ;-)

On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:24:51AM +0900, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Well, at least it's good to see that URIs as currently defined produce a
> similar empty and unsatisfying feeling in some quarters of the RDF
> community as well as in some quarters of the XML community.
> I'll repeat my suggestion from earlier: either clarify RFC 2396 and give it
> some meat - on the difficult questions like what a resource is, what an
> identifier is, and how to compare resources and identifiers - or just call
> it syntax for identifiers and leave it at that.
> I'm happy to see this latest draft as a guide to URIs, but I don't think it
> rates status other than informational.

  I assume that for your applications you need some further constrained
definition of what a Resource is. That's fine. But are you suggesting
that your definitions be applied to other applications as well?


Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 01:04:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC