[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs

• To: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:42:07 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3C6D4EDF.2C39D822@p...>
• References: <B892ACD3.E80B%patrick.stickler@n...> <3C6D4EDF.2C39D822@p...>

On Friday 15 February 2002 18:09, Paul Prescod wrote:

> Now you would argue that it is "incorrect" for a URI referencing the
> concept to return a GET-able representation. But that is PRECISELY what
> HTTP is for. It is nothing more than a protocol for GET-ing, PUT-ting
> and POST-ing representations of resources and DELETEing resources.

Which was the original point: HTTP is not 'the universal protocol for doing 
stuff to URIs'. We need other protocols and mechanisms to do other things. 
Like physically being within line of site of a physical object like the 
Eiffel Tower.

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software  

• References:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: WSIO vs. Semantic Web - Setting the Record Straight
• Next by Date: RE: REST has too many verbs
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Next by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread