- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:50:49 -0400
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
> This is exactly the confusion I'm militating against. The idea that
> "relative URIs" are not a subset of "URIs" is simply bad terminology
> and it needs to be fixed. Any normal person is going to say, of
> course a relative URI is a URI.
Do you think that stone lions, like the ones outside the New York
Public Library, are lions? They certainly don't belong to the
species _Panthera leo_.
--
"Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan
could understand this report. Run out jcowan@reutershealth.com
and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it." http://www.reutershealth.com
--Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 04:31:04 UTC