[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
John Cowan wrote: > >... > > Fair enough. But one and the same URI should not name two different > things. Agreed. The question is whether *you* can have a URI which, when someone does a GET on it, returns an HTML page. I don't see why not. We can agree that there can be an RDDL document at a namespace URI without the HTML document *being* the namespace. It is one representation for the namespace. Another might be a pure HTML rendition, another a schema etc. conneg allows this possibility to be concrete, not abstract. >... > Again, fair enough. But the use of "description" is an equivoque: the > HTML you can GET from http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/ is a representation > of a certain resource of type "hyperdocument". That is not true. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=foo+bar The thing you get back is an HTML rendition of the set of all documents with foo and bar in them indexed by Google. If Google supports conneg, I can ask for an XML rendition too. The "resource" is neither of type HTML nor hyperdocument nor XML. It isn't even IMPLEMENTED that way. It is implemented as a set of probably non-contiguous bits in a Big Honking Database. The only question is whether Google wants to reify the HTML page *itself* (as another URI) so that statements can be made about it rather than about the abstract resource. Or maybe the person making the statement wants to make the distinction that they aren't talking about the resource but the representation of it. 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
|