RE: Clarification of charmod-uri

[...]

> I feel some sense of failure at having arrived at such a singular lack of
> consensus on this issue. I do agree with the sense at the telecon that it
> was better to make the decision now, and see how much support or dissent it
> generates in the wider community; but regret that we have not had a fuller
> debate in telecon and e-mail. I would particularly like to hear from Jos
> and Brian as to why they voted against.


1) maybe I am misunderstanding it but
[[
Axiom: Opacity of URIs
The only thing you can use an identifier for is to refer to an object.
When you are not dereferencing you should not look at the contents of
the URI string to gain other information as little as possible.
]] -- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque

2) RFC2396 the URI spec so far, and I have to build
stuff like our R representative mechanism on top of that

--
Jos

Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 18:33:59 UTC