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

Re: URIs are simply names R

• To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@n...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names R
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:13:40 -0500
• Cc: "XML DEV" <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <B892ADB0.E80D%patrick.stickler@n...>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Stickler" wrote:
> >
> > Again, the "data:" scheme is designed to do exactly this. For example
> > suppose the URI:
> >
> > http://example.org/TheEiffelTower
> >
> > which when GET'd returns:
> >
> > "this is a description of the Eiffel Tower"
> >
> > and the URI (modulo escaping):
> >
> > "data:text/plain,this is a description of the Eiffel Tower"
>
> This is IMO a logical error. If the URI in question really does
> denote the physical object, the Eiffel Tower, then you should
> get 404 as (given present non-StarTrek technology) you cannot
> retrieve a physical object.
>

You are operating under basic misconceptions.

Let me clarify:

1. HTTP GET on an RFC 2396 URI returns an "entity" NOT a "resource"
2.An entity is a representation of a resource

(let's forget the "data" scheme for the moment until we understand the
basics)

Don't take my words as authoritative, rather let's actually read the
relevent RFCs.

RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt

see definitions of the terms "resource" and  "entity"

HTTP: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
[[
9.3 GET

   The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an
   entity) is identified by the Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers
   to a data-producing process, it is the produced data which shall be
   returned as the entity in the response and not the source text of the
   process, unless that text happens to be the output of the process.
]]

This discussion started in the context of the "REST" Architecture as
described in Fielding, R. 2000
http://www1.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm

It would be helpful to read the relevent documents because there is really
no point in arguing what is "logical" when we are defining our basic terms
in a different fashion.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Two Perspectives (was Re: URIs are simply names R)
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>

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

• Prev by Date: Validating against schema a file with another schema in it.
• Next by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Next by thread: Two Perspectives (was Re: URIs are simply names R)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread