Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: james anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:07:56 +0200
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> .... Yes, it can be done with a URI but
> only if the URI has version number on the end of it.
> Not complex, but I think [un?]necessary. ...
Why is that so bad?
What does articulating the version information accomplish?
How is it operationally different than using an URI form which supports
versions. And/or developing an URI form which has the semantics which
one requires? Wouldn't this have the advantage of unbundling the version
semantics from the XML encoding?