- From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 15:18:50 -0400
- To: uri@w3.org
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > At 08:31 AM 9/7/00 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote: > > >The abstract concept of 'number' is pretty airy. The concrete case of > >'positive integers' is fairly well constrained. The concept of URIs > >should be viewed in the same level of the concept of 'number' and the > >general case of 'number theory'. If your application needs the equivalent > >of 'positive integers' then say so. Why do you insist on the rest of > >us having to constrain ourselves to that new, more constrained definition? > > I think the 'rest of us' might well benefit from clearer distinctions > between URIs and the resources they identify, from a comparison mechanism > that simplifies URI processing, and from a foundation vocabulary that makes > it easy to say "this scheme is subject to x, y, and z constraints". I'm glad that you're pushing for a distinction between URIs and the resources they identify, because the confusion of the two is like the confusion between Alice and "Alice". It's one thing to leave a concept flexible, but quite another to leave it logically inconsistent. Paul Abrahams
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 15:19:03 UTC