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

Re: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful

• To: jborden@a... (Jonathan Borden)
• Subject: Re: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 07:14:51 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: jc2astro@h..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <003101c233c7$c6039ff0$0201a8c0@n...> from "Jonathan Borden" at Jul 25, 2002 06:41:02 AM

Jonathan Borden scripsit:

> No. Every URI _always_ identifies a resource.

Only if you allow that some things with URI syntax aren't really URIs.
For example, "http://www.cs.usyrtis.mars/rfc/rfc32767.txt" doesn't
represent any resource at present:  there is no University of Syrtis
to serve as the authority, and the RFC sequence has only reached the
3000s.

> The point of the above is that the representation of a conceptual resource
> "a thing without a represenation" could always be the text: "a thing without
> a representation", therefor there one can always provide a representation
> for any resource (if one so chooses).

Ceci n'est pas une représentation.  :-)

-- 
John Cowan    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan   <jcowan@r...>
    "Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram
    that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in
    5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document
    as any, even sans digital signature." --me

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• References:
  • Re: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by Date: Re: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful
• Previous by thread: Re: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by thread: Re: stupid URI tricks was: Re: URIs harmful
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread