• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Generality of HTTP
• From: "Miles Sabin" <msabin@i...>
• Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:49:19 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <200201212035.PAA20991@m...>

Mark Baker wrote,
> Miles Sabin wrote,
> > 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

I don't see how that's relevant.

Either the URI on it's own can mean bricks (in which case ftp: or 
mailto: can do just as well), or it's the resource at the end of the 
URI which is doing the job (in which case any URI scheme which 
supports retrieval can do just as well).

In neither case do the special features of the HTTP protocol play any 
role.

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                                     InterX
Internet Systems Architect                      27 Great West Road
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                             Middx, TW8 9AS, UK
msabin@i...                               http://www.interx.com/

• References:
  • Re: Generality of HTTP
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• Prev by Date: What is RDDL for?
• Next by Date: Re: What is RDDL for?
• Previous by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread