Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Maybe, maybe not. But either way, there's nothing particularly special > about http: URIs in this respect ... an ftp: or mailto: or whatever > URI would do just as well (or badly, depending on your POV). Sure. The important point here is that the HTTP protocol has features that explicitly support the resource/representation distinction, whereas FTP doesn't (and mailto: doesn't even have a standard resolution mechanism). For example, I could assert that this URI identified those bricks (don't try to resolve it); ftp://www.markbaker.ca/foo/bar/bricks.jpg But since FTP only knows how to identify files, it won't allow me to add an alternate representation, say an HTML file, like HTTP does with content negotiation. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@p... http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
|
