[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace wit
Irrelevant language wordsmithing, the sort of thing that the HTML community liked to lay at the feet of their elders as "lawyering over design". The fact that it is circular is bad authoring. The fact that one placed in an address box, if the scheme morph is there and there is access to a resolver, it is expected to attempt to resolve. The fact of different representations being available given a resource is in the nature of the resource. If you reference a process that varies over time, don't expect a constant. It is the resource that decides. The clock is the example Fielding gives, and that is fine; it returns a time. That is consistent and precictable. It is the notion that what is returned is unique that is hosed. It is a member of a set. Without the set membership, it's identity is meaningless. Differentiation of an ambiguous symbol depends on context. Browsers are blithely unaware. len From: Jimmy Cerra [mailto:jc2astro@h...] > A URzed is always dereferenceable. Did you mean URI, URN or URL? If you meant anything other than URL, then I disagree with you. Per the TLA, an instance of an URI represents the Identity of a Resource. This seems like a fancy phrase for "a reference to something" or "a symbol for something" in my view. Thus I place URIs in the same class as addresses, bibliographic references, and person names. It is not always dereferenceable, however. How would you dereference a URI identifying itself [1]? Further, the "something" may be an abstract concept like a point in time: for instance you can't dereference a date that has already occurred, but you can reference it.
|
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
|