- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 06:59:58 -0700
- To: Joshua Tauberer <tauberer@for.net>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>, "Hammond, Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>, 'SWIG' <semantic-web@w3.org>
Joshua Tauberer wrote: > ...if I want to assign a URI to my bed (as I did in the article), > I don't think there's a point to using http:. Of course in the end it > doesn't matter, but it is a point of confusion. The confusion has come about because there's so much administrative baggage associated with ___domain names. If your bed had a numbered tag it would benefit from http:ness and a "fuck a bunch of authoritizations" attitude. In a recent news story about who governs the internet it was asserted that all the possible ___domain names had been gobbled up by the greedy Americans but of course by the very definition of numbers, this is an absurd notion. So http: to your heart's content because the indexing/dating will adequately differentiate otherwise identical number choices. Love.
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 13:59:53 UTC