Graham wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005, at 8:44 pm, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I.e., just because it's a "permanent, universally unique identifier" doesn't mean you're not able to use it twice to talk about a single entry;
I disagree, as I've said before. The only literal interpretation is that you can't serve the same entry twice with the same id. We know it doesn't mean that, but the spec just doesn't define in which axis "unique" is meant to apply.
Hmm. The things URIs identify can change. What we really want to say is "don't be a bother and produce different entries with the same id" and "don't expect clients to keep separate records of entries with the same id". We should probably be more worried about bad implementions totally missing the point of "identifiers", than about good implementations with sophisticated notions of versioning and identifiers.
Robert Sayre
