W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2005

Re: [schemeProtocols-49] Editor's draft of finding on schemeProtocols-49

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:19:32 -0400
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, sysreq@w3.org, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFEED0F2B8.A671F3BA-ON85257024.0053F937-85257024.00549DBA@lotus.com>

Tim BL wrote:

> Looks like a problem with a missed boundary marker.

Yes, I noticed that later.  At first I just did a quick check and realized 
the attachment wasn't there.   Haven't seen this particular failure 
before.  Anyway, copies are now checked into date space so there shouldn't 
be much need to refer to or send around copies in emails. 

Tim:  on a more substantive note, you might want to check out the note 
from Mark Baker [1] and response from Larry Masinter at [2].  I'm 
beginning to understand why I'm having trouble telling a story that meets 
with approval of all the experts regarding URI <-> resource associations 
and the involvement or lack thereof of protocols.  Modulo possible 
questions as to who qualifies as an expert, it seems to me that the 
experts don't completely agree.  Just for consistency, I'm sending this 
reply to the same cc: list that you provided, but I suggest that if you 
want to discuss the substance of URI <-> resource binding that you do it 
as a reply on the thread at [1,2].  Note in particular that you have 
copied neither www-tag@w3.org or tag@w3.org on this mini-thread.  www-tag 
should of course be included in technical discussion of the draft finding.



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0027.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0036.html

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2005 15:19:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC