- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:55:37 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-18 3:20 AM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> Of course! I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The issue at hand is >> whether we can define it as naming an abstract resource. See my message >> "URIs vs. URIviews (core issue)". > Hmmm, that seems like a question about the nature of resources and what > names them. These are questions we have kicked to the tag. No, the issue is what URI-references name. I think it's pretty unambiguously clear and I've seen Roy Fielding, Al Gilman, and many others say the same thing. I guess we could take it to the TAG if we wanted to be absolutely sure, but I'm not sure how they can say anything different than what the spec says. > Have I understood you correctly? You are arguing, not that we should > answer this question, but that we should discourage folks from using uri's > with frag id's until this has been cleaned up? I think the question is answered (feel free to look at the text in RFC2396 and decide for yourself). But yes, I think we should discourage their use as a way to stop things from getting worse. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 09:55:33 UTC