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

Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pacewith

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pacewith James Clark)
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 14:45:51 -0400
• References: <200207201755.g6KHtqN8000702@c...>

[Mike Brown]


> Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> > A URI is intended to allow you to "identify"  something, and that
something
> > does not have to be a retrievable resource. It can be abstract.  A URL
is a
> > special case that gives you an identifier that does work for retrieving
an
> > actual resource.
>
> Just to clarify,
>
> 'Retrieval' is the wrong word here. 'Access' is better -- The resource may
be
> too intangible for its representation to be a retrievable entity, and the
> primary access method as implied by the scheme may not even facilitate
> retrieval (or a meaningful response of any kind) at all. For example,
>

I'll go along with you - "access" will do for me.  Come to think of it, an
email address is not a URI scheme, is it?  It is only the mailto:xxx@yyy
that would  a URI.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pacewith James Clark)
    • From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V ersioning
• Next by Date: RE: functional programming and xml
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pacewith James Clark)
• Next by thread: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread