Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
Patrick Stickler wrote: > >... > > The problem here is that if I dereference some URI expecting to > access that actual resource, and get some metadata or RDDL document > or something else in its place, how do I necessarily know that > that is *not* in fact the resource? You never, ever, ever get the actual resource. So it's easy to know. ;) If you get back an HTML page then by definition the owner of that site has said that's a representation of the resource (whether it be you, or an XML namespace or a Real Document). >.... > It should be clear up front what "flavor" of URI you have, and > whether it does or does not denote some retrievable resource > or whether it denotes some abstract resource -- or if it is > in fact the actual resource (consider a data: URI). And that > should be based on a formal classification of URI schemes and > URI classes. I was arguing that two years ago. And I still see some virtue in it. BUT you are not making the argument correctly based on the Web's architecture. Resources are never returned. An "abstract" resource is a resource that has no GET-able representation right now. Arguably choosing to make a resource abstract is a mistake because later you don't have the option of making it GET-able, as some people have done with XML namespaces. Paul Prescod
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