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

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

From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 01:30:56 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20000909013042.0372bdd0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: uri@w3.org
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:

 > At 08:31 AM 9/7/00 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote:
 >
 > >The abstract concept of 'number' is pretty airy. The concrete case of
 > >'positive integers' is fairly well constrained. The concept of URIs
 > >should be viewed in the same level of the concept of 'number' and the
 > >general case of 'number theory'. If your application needs the equivalent
 > >of 'positive integers' then say so. Why do you insist on the rest of
 > >us having to constrain ourselves to that new, more constrained definition?
 >
 > I think the 'rest of us' might well benefit from clearer distinctions
 > between URIs and the resources they identify, from a comparison mechanism
 > that simplifies URI processing, and from a foundation vocabulary that makes
 > it easy to say "this scheme is subject to x, y, and z constraints".

I'm glad that you're pushing for a distinction between URIs and the resources
they identify, because the confusion of the two is like the confusion between
Alice and "Alice".   It's one thing to leave a concept flexible, but quite
another to leave it logically inconsistent.

Paul Abrahams
Received on Sunday, 10 September 2000 18:44:07 UTC

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