At 11:12 PM +0100 9/5/07, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
or 2) leave the specs where they are and create new -intro pages.
I've seen [...] no one object to #2.
Then you haven't been paying full attention.
For those of us who
On Fri, September 7, 2007 15:00, Eric A. Meyer wrote:
or 2) leave the specs where they are and create new -intro pages.
I've seen [...] no one object to #2.
Then you haven't been paying full attention.
For those of us who indeed haven't been paying full attention to
this particular thread
Tantek =?ISO-8859-1?B?xw==?=elik wrote:
Syntactically the URI would still work, however, semantically it would have
been broken, that is, it is bad to not only change URIs so that they 404 and
just plain don't work, but it is also bad to change the *meaning* of that
URI.
As long as there is
On 5 Sep 2007, at 20:18, Toby A Inkster wrote:
Syntactically the URI would still work, however, semantically it
would have
been broken, that is, it is bad to not only change URIs so that
they 404 and
just plain don't work, but it is also bad to change the *meaning*
of that
URI.
As long
On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Ben Ward wrote:
Syntactically the URI would still work, however, semantically it
would have
been broken, that is, it is bad to not only change URIs so that
they 404 and
just plain don't work, but it is also bad to change the *meaning*
of that
URI.
As long as
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
or 2) leave the specs where they are and create new -intro pages.
I've seen [...] no one object to #2.
Then you haven't been paying full attention.
--
Andy Mabbett
___
