[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> It would probably have been better if the W3C had said that, if you want to
> have a pure identifier that is not intended to give network access to a
> resource, then use the w3c-ndi: scheme ("W3C Non-dereferenceable Identifer")
> or some such, and to have issued an RFC that specified exactly those
> semantics.
"Non-dereferenceable identifier" would be an oxymoron, according to some,
and depending on the definition of dereference, I would agree! :)
- Mike
____________________________________________________________________________
mike j. brown | xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/
denver/boulder, colorado, usa | resume: http://skew.org/~mike/resume/
|
