[Mike Brown]
> 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! :)
>
:-) Could be, Mike, but I bet everyone reading it knows just what I
intended! Call it what you will, a special scheme for these things could
make sense.
Cheers,
Tom P
