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 ).
> 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
I don’t  think that there is anybody who is +seriously+ arguing that
all identifiers must be resolvable +to be useful as identifiers+.
;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library
;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3