>If we're lucky, you
>may get to meet my boss, John Klensin, who's an act unto himself. Great
>oral history of the Net he's got stashed away... You probably know my
>uber-boss, Vint Cerf, but he's in Reston -- we're the only two engineers
>in Boston.
Also, can you explain this quote:
PPS. On strict orders from Dan Connolly, I'm emitting one standard
metric
cluon of Establishmentarian Disapproval (TM) for the use of <URL:*>.
Long
ago, I implemented it as part of the WebStep standards, but I was wrong,
too (http://xent.w3.org/WebStep ). Besides, my URLifier includes the
trailing
'>' in the path...
MS Outlook isn't smart enough to recognize URLs that begin URL:http://
so Keith's usage annoys me, whether it's correct or not. But is it
correct? The issue can't just be URLs vs. URNs and other URIs as it
should be obvious that any URN scheme has to avoid clobbering the URL
namespace.
- dan
On Wednesday, June 25, Rohit Khare <khare@w3.org> wrote:
>Rohit to Keith:
>> >Well, you might be more of a native, but I haven't had an excuse to glide
>> >up to 'Top of the Hub' for a lunch meeting, so that's an inoffensive
default
>> >
>> > [name dropping removed]
>
>Dan interjects:
>> Luke, you can not deny your true calling. Marketing will win you over
>> eventually.
>>
>> - dan
>
>Man, you Minions of the Dark Side sure look cuter than Vader would suggest
>:-)
>
>Never -- marketing is a part of me, not I it... I hope!
>
>In any case, Dan, what did you think of our trust management missive?
>http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~adam/papers/trust (plug, plug!)
>
>Thanks,
>Rohit
>
>PS. Adam: you should replace 6.2 with my new edit -- just so it's correct!
>
>