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

Re: Generality of HTTP

• To: msabin@i...
• Subject: Re: Generality of HTTP
• From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
• Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:51:37 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <000001c1a1bb$05de5e20$a3eab8c3@m...> from "Miles Sabin" at Jan 20, 2002 02:01:56 PM

> Oh dear ... I've already used that URI to denote the class of people
> who don't have a firm grip on the concept of naming ;-)

Heh.  But I'm afraid that it's my URI space, and only I get to decide
what my URIs identify.

> Question 1: What's to stop me doing that?

Nothing.  We can all identify bricks in our own way.

> Question 2: If there's nothing to stop me, what does this tell us
>             about the usefulness of private conventions involving the
>             use of http: URIs as names?

What private conventions?  What I did is no more private than using
the words "Mark's bricks", just with a different syntax that happens to
have some useful properties; being resolvable, being the biggie.  But
like "Mark's bricks", it can be used without resolution because
it's just a name.

> Question 3: Why is the http: URI scheme any better (or worse) than
>             any other in this regard?

Because it was designed to allow resolution and manipulation of
anything with identity.

If I was asked to identify a file, I might have chosen ftp:.
If I was asked to identify a mailbox, I might have chosen mailto:

But I can identify both with http:

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@p...
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

• References:
  • RE: Generality of HTTP
    • From: "Miles Sabin" <msabin@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Next by Date: Re: A nice little RDDL app I don't have time to write
• Previous by thread: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread