- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 100 01:02:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: timbl@w3.org (Tim Berners-Lee)
- Cc: xml-uri@w3.org
Tim Berners-Lee scripsit: > >Well, consider sharing (via links or symlinks or multiple servers) > >rather than copying What then? > > > Copying, sharing, replicating, mirroring, symbolic linking, shortcutting, > duplicating, transclusing, mapping, mounting, or any any other technique > making a machine which will cause the rendition of resources in the second > set in an equivalent way to those in the second set. What's your point? That when you are sharing, there is no "second set", at least arguably not. (We still don't have any criterion of resource identity, or rather non-identity, except "the resource owner says so".) > Well, OK, can we go for URIs from the point of view of the infoset? We *can* do anything. But we have to face the price that will be paid for any option, and arrive at a consensus that it is worth paying: "forbid": orphaned documents (unknown number) "absolutize": existing behavior breaks silently "literal": bad foundation for going forward "new synthesis": TimBL thinks it is hair-splitting (:-)) Or else we have to abandon the consensus process, so far as it relates to this issue, in favor of an alternative process. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org Yes, I know the message date is bogus. I can't help it. --me, on far too many occasions
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2000 00:36:05 UTC