- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:59:09 +0100
- To: <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- CC: <eran@hueniverse.com>, <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <jar@creativecommons.org>, <connolly@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2009-02-25 19:05, "ext Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote: > ... You need to define > precisely to say what is "mis-use" and what is not. Making blank > statement is not helpful. > Again, show a use case to demonstrate how optimal MGET is over Conneg. > Repeating something doesn't make something true. > ... What I am saying is that then Conneg for RDF-type does the > same thing as MGET. I don't need MGET to get RDF. > ... whatever MGET do can be done in > CN. Then, please, make some concrete argument to justify your claim and > show (1) something that MGET can do but CN cannot do. or (2) if both can > do, why MGET is good or CN is bad in practice. I have already responded to all of these points (some of them several times). Please take the time to read my posts, and if you have any further questions about anything I have said, please ask me in a private email. Regards, Patrick
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 04:57:03 UTC