Eric Scheid wrote: > On 18/5/06 10:59 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[snip] >> Yes, this makes sense. Also, I am changing this definition making ref >> required in all cases. > > what if the other resource doesn't have an ID thingy ... what goes into the > @ref then? >
If the other resource cannot be uniquely and persistently identified, then it cannot be responded to. I think that's a fair trade off. - James
