At 09:15 AM 5/30/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: >On 2002-05-29 15:05, "ext Graham Klyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > .. (e.g. I have a > > convention in my web space that http://id.ninebynine.org/ is used for such > > abstract identifiers. I think it helps to clarify the intent, but it > > doesn't make all the problems go away, such as my second question above.) > >Tut, tut, Graham ;-) > >How is this any different from voc://ninebynine.org/... except that the >convention is not standardized and the semantics that the URI denotes an >abstract resource is specific/proprietary to your own practices?
Exactly that! It's not standard, and it's something that I as owner of the domain space choose to do. It does nothing to change the universal elements of interpretation of a URI. >This seems to conflict with your earlier expressed opinion that the URI >should not reflect itself whether the resource is or is not "on the web" Er, no: what I said was: [[ (By which, I mean that I don't accept them as universal proposals: I have no argument with their use as a convenient mechanism by you or any other developers. ... ]] I might have added "domain owners". #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
