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

Re: many-to-many

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: many-to-many
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:49:46 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E18bnRL-0004QC-00@b...>

uche.ogbuji@f... (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
>What puzzles me, though, is that you've always seemed distrustful of
>this approach, so what it is about Bill's particular expression of the
>idea that holds some appeal for you?

Primarily that it seems to acknowledge a lot of the disconnects in the
URI universe rather than denying their existence.  My primary interest
in working with URIs is in dealing with their concrete representations,
and the notion of these unique Platonic Forms lurking behind me has
always seemed stupid, to put it simply. 

(I'm no fan of Plato to begin with, so finding a cult of 21st-century
Platonists who fancy themselves philosopher-kings is a strange shock all
its own.)

Bill's expression seems to me to pull the rug out from under those
conceits and open up some new possibilities.  After spending too much
time in the gardens of RFC 2396, it was nice to have a few bolts of
lightning.

>I've always said the sky is not falling in my corner of the URI
>universe, and precisely because I've pretty much always admitted the
>many-to-many idea, and scoffed at the very concept of a truly
>universal identifier.

They did relax a bit on the "universality", settling just for uniform,
but you're definitely right.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• References:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: many-to-many
• Next by Date: RE: many-to-many
• Previous by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Next by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread