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

Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs

• To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>,"Paul Prescod" <paul@p...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:02:09 +0000
• In-reply-to: <001801c1b48a$61177ba0$0301a8c0@n...>
• References: <E16al5H-0004sH-00@m...> <E16awvc-0002PK-00@c...> <001801c1b48a$61177ba0$0301a8c0@n...>

On Wednesday 13 February 2002 12:31, Jonathan Borden wrote:

> URIs are names. The point being made is that what they name is NOT the
> literal series of characters returned by a GET, rather the URI names a
> _resource_ which might be anything thing that has a name. What is returned
> by a GET is simply a description of the actual resource (other wording is a
> 'representation of the resource').

Sometimes it's a description (like my web page), sometimes it's confirmation 
of an action having been performed on that resource (when the GET invokes a 
script on the server), sometimes it's the actual resource (when the resource 
*is* a string of bytes). That's the distinction I think is being blurred over 
here.

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software  

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST? (RE: WSIO- With Name)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
  • URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• Prev by Date: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by Date: Architectural Forms, A Summary
• Previous by thread: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread