Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 12:01, Paul Prescod wrote: > "Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > > URLs are genuinely successful. The scheme: approach was a good idea. > > However, I don't think any strong case can be made that URIs are genuine > > contributors to the success of that information system, except to the > > extent that they overlap with URLs - and, in many ways, damage the > > usefulness of URLs. > > I don't really distinguish between URIs and URLs for two reasons: > > 1. I don't want to get into a philisophical debate on the distinction. > > 2. Almost all of the URIs I see are actually URLs. > > When I say that URIs are great I don't mean as opposed to URLs, I mean > including URLs. And I'm saying that I find your claims inappropriate. The problems and discussions we have on a regular basis with URIs are not problems with URLs. They are additional ugly problems brought on by the philosophical freight URIs carry. I see little evidence that URIs - beyond URLs - have contributed much good to the developing universe. > People SHOULD treat URLs (even HTTP) ones more like *identifiers* rather > than *locators* in the sense that you should think of the identifier as > being welded to the resource and not just a convenient way of finding it > on the network. And I disagree to the extent that the *identifiers* contract varies from the expectations already built into pretty much every piece of Web software regarding the *locations* contract. And resources? What? Entities at least have electronic substance. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format