W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need for urn: URIs

From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:03:21 +0100
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: hardie@qualcomm.com, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030711080321.GI26790@finch-staff-1.thus.net>

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com said:
> > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com said:
> > > Any URI https://X denotes the very same resource as
> > > the URI http://X,
> > 
> > This is complete and utter rubbish.
> 
> You may be right ;-)

I am. You made an unequivocable statement. I provided a counter-example.
You are wrong.

> Though it is still important to make the distinction between
> denotation and behavior (accessible representations).

Agreed.

> Even though you may provide representations to someone you
> trust that you wouldn't provide to someone you don't, that
> doesn't mean the http: and https: URIs above don't denote
> the same resource.

That may or may not be the case.

However, that's a statement of the form:

    Any URI https://X can denote the very same resource as
    the URI http://X,

which is very different from what you said the first time.

If the difference between "denotes" and "can denote" is too subtle for you
(is English your first language? I can't tell) then may I suggest you don't
belong in this debate. If the difference is clear to you, then please
retract your former statement.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@davros.org>  | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 04:03:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC