[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: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:43:48 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200202131540.KAA09579@m...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <200202131540.KAA09579@m...>

On Wednesday 13 February 2002 10:40 am, Mark Baker wrote:
> > Which is perfectly fine... the question though is how do I refer
> > to a *specific* digtal resource reliably, such that I can always
> > retrieve a represenation that it is a copy of the original
> > resource? Using a URI, how can I reliably point to foo.gif?
>
> Use the URI provided in the Content-Location header of the response,
> if any.
>
> From RFC 2616, Sec 14.14;
>
>   "A server SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the
>    variant corresponding to the response entity; especially in the
> case where a resource has multiple entities associated with it, and
> those entities actually have separate locations by which they might
> be individually accessed, the server SHOULD provide a
> Content-Location for the particular variant which is returned."
>
> If a specific URI for the representation isn't provided, then your
> only choice is for you to identify it yourself by hanging that
> content off of your own web server.

I hope you see the point here though.... there is *no* reliable way to 
send a URI to a specific resource representation as the web would 
exist in a world of purely abstract URI's. To my mind, that is BAD 
(Broken As Designed). Abstract URI's are a powerful thing, but they 
shouldn't/cannot be the *only* thing.... (maybe that's why we used to 
have URL, URI, URN?)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• References:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• Next by Date: RE: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
• 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