- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 17 Jul 2003 10:13:35 -0500
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 09:40, Williams, Stuart wrote: > Well... I wish I understood the case for it being so wrong... 'illegal' in > Tim's words. > > To be frank... I don't understand it... and don't see the need for the > constraint... and I know I'm addressing a champion of the 'minimal > constraint' principle. > > Last time you and I spoke about it you spoke in less black and white terms > and about an 'economic' rationale - it is more 'costly' done this way... yes. > but > I have failed to recreate that discussion... did you write it down anywhere? umm... I don't think so. Sandro and I and others have written some relevant stuff in/near http://esw.w3.org/topic/HashURI but I haven't actually figured out how to write down my intuitions about economic justification for HashURIs. > Equally, if some argument has convinced you to take a more absolute stance > I'd be interested to know what it is/was. Nope. > FWIW you will also see use of http scheme URI (without fragments) in SOAP1.2 > Part 2 recommendation [1] to name features and properties. > > Stuart > -- > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapfeatspec p.s. your mailer doesn't do threading. That's a pain. Any chance I could talk you into switching to a mailer that does? http://cr.yp.to/immhf/thread.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 11:13:41 UTC