- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:55:32 -0400
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> | Absolutely not. Joshua didn't mean that you knew what each URI meant > | by just looking at it -- he meant (I think/hope!) that you know from > | the architecture that the two occurrences of the URI will identify the > | same thing, whatever that is. There is no ambiguity built into the > | architecture itself. This is a core principle fo the Web which we > | seem to be in danger of forgetting. > > It bothers me that you've apparently removed "reasonable degree of > confidence" from your explanation of Joshua's suggested text. Was that > accidental or intentional? > Intentional. A URI[ref] is *defined* always to always to the same thing. It is not context sensitive. This is WWW architecture. If people make conflicting statements about one thing, that is contradiction, not ambiguity. If someone else contradicts the owner, they are wrong. If two people contradict each other you can ignore one or the other or both. If the owner contradicts is or herself, then he or she has broken the protocol and you as a realistic agent stop playing with him or her. URIs we are arguing about, HTTP URIs have owners. So you can't really make assertions about http://www.example.com/ at all as the example domain is not allocated and has no real identifiers - it is reserved for use in examples. But using it as a stand-in for a real domain, I would then > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | Reason's last step is the recognition that > XML Standards Architect | there are an infinite number of things which > Sun Microsystems, Inc. | are beyond it.--Pascal
Received on Monday, 5 August 2002 10:55:35 UTC