• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Generality of HTTP
• From: "Miles Sabin" <msabin@i...>
• Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:56:31 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <1011646583.1480.15.camel@l...>

Simon St.Laurent wrote,
> That might be what it means for them, but their agreement may not 
> have any effect on what it means for me.  In fact, their agreement, 
> if I haven't heard of it, may be less binding for me than the 
> owner's intent.  Why?  Because the owner's intent is likely easily 
> discoverable at that URI, while their intent is somewhere else in 
> the universe.

Maybe, maybe not. But either way, there's nothing particularly special
about http: URIs in this respect ... an ftp: or mailto: or whatever 
URI would do just as well (or badly, depending on your POV).

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                                     InterX
Internet Systems Architect                      27 Great West Road
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                             Middx, TW8 9AS, UK
msabin@i...                               http://www.interx.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Generality of HTTP
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Generality of HTTP
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Is a namespace a set? yes, and rddl is not.
• Next by Date: Re: Re: RDDL -- How would you design it?
• Previous by thread: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread