Mark Baker wrote,
> John Cowan wrote,
> > Bricks, lots and lots of bricks. They need brick: URIs.
> > And when you GET them, you don't get much.
>
> Not a problem for the mighty HTTP protocol and URI scheme;
>
> http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/01/Bricks/
Oh dear ... I've already used that URI to denote the class of people
who don't have a firm grip on the concept of naming ;-)
Question 1: What's to stop me doing that?
Question 2: If there's nothing to stop me, what does this tell us
about the usefulness of private conventions involving the
use of http: URIs as names?
Question 3: Why is the http: URI scheme any better (or worse) than
any other in this regard?
Cheers,
Miles
--
Miles Sabin InterX
Internet Systems Architect 27 Great West Road
+44 (0)20 8817 4030 Middx, TW8 9AS, UK
http://www.interx.com/
