 |
 |
At Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:52:10 -0400, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > > Erik Hetzner wrote: > > > > I don’t actually think that there is anybody who is arguing that all > > identifiers must be resolvable. There are people who argue that there > > are identifiers which must NOT be resolvable; at least in their basic > > form. (see Stuart Weibel [1]). > > There are indeed people arguing that, Erik, on this very list. Like, > in the email I responded to (did you read that one?). That's why I > wrote what I did, man! You know I'm the one who cited Stu's argument > first on this list! I am aware of his arguments. I am aware of > people arguing various things on this issue. My apologies for missing Andrew’s argument and not pointing out that you had originally pointed to Stuart’s argument. > But when did someone suggest that all identifiers must be resolvable? > When Andrew argued that: > > > Having unresolvable URIs is anti-Web since the Web is a hypertext > > system where links are required to make it useful. Exposing > > unresolvable links in content on the Web doesn't make the Web > > more useful. > > Okay, I guess he didn't actually SAY that you should never have > non-resolvable identifiers, but he rather strongly implied it, by > using the "anti-Web" epithet. Given Andrew’s later response, I would like to restate my previous argument: I don’t [] think that there is anybody who is +seriously+ arguing that all identifiers must be resolvable +to be useful as identifiers+. best, Erik