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

RE: URIs harmful

• To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: URIs harmful
• From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:14:59 -0700
• Cc: <bill.dehora@p...>,"Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcI0IT7hDYKQqZdgSZiqbAGrHYdMxwABuHRw
• Thread-topic: URIs harmful

> > > > Most people wouldn't want to interact with beaches via http.
> > >
> > > But a representation of the beach might be useful to some.
> >
> > Not really.  The HTTP-accessible *representations* that people might
> > want, could include representations of:
> >
> > * a view through a webcam belonging to a gyros vendor on the beach
> > * a map of the beach, highlighting particular facilities
> > * opinions and reviews about the beach
> > * recent news about the beach
> > * weather reports from the beach
> >
> > None of those ARE the beach, they are simply things ABOUT the beach.
> > They all deserve to have their own identity.
> 
> Sorry, Joshua, but you don't get to arbitrate this.  Each person is
free

Of course.

People are free to say "bad" when they mean "good".  I am not trying to
arbitrate or mandate good form.

On the other hand, I think it is self-evidently stupid to use http:
identifiers to identify beaches (and I think you agree), and at a
minimum, I would hope that W3C don't start recommending such folly by
making pointless declarations about "the range of http is infinity and
beyond".

• Prev by Date: Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
• Next by Date: Re: URIs harmful
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by thread: RE: URIs harmful
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread