• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Generality of HTTP
• From: "Miles Sabin" <msabin@i...>
• Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:01:56 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <200201201346.IAA10678@m...>
• Reply-to: <msabin@i...>

Mark Baker wrote,
> John Cowan wrote,
> > Bricks, lots and lots of bricks.  They need brick: URIs.
> > And when you GET them, you don't get much.
>
> Not a problem for the mighty HTTP protocol and URI scheme;
>
> http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/01/Bricks/

Oh dear ... I've already used that URI to denote the class of people
who don't have a firm grip on the concept of naming ;-)

Question 1: What's to stop me doing that?

Question 2: If there's nothing to stop me, what does this tell us
            about the usefulness of private conventions involving the
            use of http: URIs as names?

Question 3: Why is the http: URI scheme any better (or worse) than
            any other in this regard?

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: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Next by Date: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Previous by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread