[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Comparable considered necessary

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:45:49 -0400
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E06621F16@r...>

Dare wrote:
> URI:  Either of the above. 

Paul Prescod had an excellent slide in the REST presentation he gave at
OSCON and Extreme Markup.  He asked what the Web would look like if it
had been defined by vendors, and he suspected that it would have
multiple addressing schemes - covering things like Lotus Notes,
Blackbird, etc.  

He put forward the suggestion that the Web is superior because it has
one approach to addressing: URIs.

I tend to look at URIs and see a unified syntax but far too many
underlying schemes.  Slapping a label on a technology and calling it
unified doesn't do much to genuinely unify it.  

We're still stuck in the same mess, unfortunately.
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Comparable considered necessary
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by Date: Re: quarantining namespaces
• Previous by thread: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by thread: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread