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

Re: RE: Generality of HTTP

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: RE: Generality of HTTP
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:17:36 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6310@HQ5>

1/25/2002 3:37:54 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> 
wrote:

>
>There ain't no The Web.  Just a bunch of 
>pieces hooked up and variously reliable 
>each according to their owner's intentions 
>... Just As God Intended. :-)

I'm not sure what the point of this subthread is ... if it's to deny 
that "The Web" exists because it can't be unambiguously defined, then 
that leads to all sorts of black holes.  (Does "Len Bullard" exist 
since  he consists of a different set of cells than he did when his 
parents named him?  Where EXACTLY is the canonical set of neurons and 
synpses that define the one and only Len Bullard?  If it turns out 
that the "Len Bullard" who posts here is really just an AI experiment 
that the "real" Len Bullard created to give him time to do his day 
job, do they both exist?) <grin>

If it is to suggest that all the wailing and gnashing about 
preserving the purity of the Web Architecture is misdirected energy, 
because "The Web" is a fuzzy set of all sorts of ideas and 
technologies that more or less interoperate most of the time, then 
I'm inclined to agree.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Generality of HTTP
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: RE: Generality of HTTP
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Generality of HTTP
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: New W3C Patent Practice
• Next by Date: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Previous by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: Re: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread