• To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@b...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:09:42 +0300
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcJB/Ex7uaw0p9eJRDadn8uoXBQTNwABRV7Q
• Thread-topic: Comparable considered necessary

> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] 

> Manos Batsis scripsit:
> 
> > If the resource is retrievable, it should be the same, 
> otherwise we have
> > a huge problem. What is missing from the puzzle today is a clean
> > separation of retrievable VS non-retrievable resources, 
> with namespaces
> > being the greatest example...
> 
> Strictly speaking there are no retrievable resources.  What 
> GET does is
> to retrieve a *representation* (possibly one of many) of the resource.

How about non-strictly speaking Mr. Cowan?

Regards,

Manos

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XLink olden days
• Next by Date: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Previous by thread: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by thread: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread