Lists Home |
Date Index |
Joshua Allen wrote:
> It's not a matter of restricting. Most people will make reasonable
> assumptions about the nature of a resource being identified based on its
> name (why would the name include a particular token, like "http:", if
> it doesn't serve to identify, anyway?)
This is dead wrong. Most people will make reasonable assumptions about the nature of a resource being identified based on its _representations_.
> If you fly against the reasonable assumptions people make, and declare
> that in YOUR identifiers, the "scheme" part is irrelevant, that's not
> enough. You also then have to change what everyone else does, because
> "words mean what people use them to mean". People will reasonably ask,
> "why restrict my interpretation of the name that way?"
aslja alsaldj jdjd ooiepoi ppoop oppopo @