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

Re: URIs harmful

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs harmful
• From: Murray Spork <m.spork@q...>
• Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:25:39 +1000
• References: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105DCDAD8@r...><3D3F360C.7030302@t...>
• Reply-to: m.spork@q...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020607

Tim Bray wrote:

> Joshua Allen wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, it is exceedingly poor form to use identifiers from
>> the HTTP scheme for things which you don't intend to be dereferenced
>> (via HTTP synchronous GET, no less).
>
>
> You might be on to something here.
>
> How about for things that you don't have any representations for right 
> now but plan to in the near future?  How about things that you don't 
> have any way of representing right now, but you might someday?  What 
> are some things that fall into the category "which you don't intend to 
> be dereferenced"?  -Tim


Thanks Tim - I guess that answers the question I just sent ;-)

But I would have thought that a more elegant solution in the cases you 
cite above would merely be to model those future dereferencable 
resources as a property of the original non-dereferancable resource - if 
and when they come on-line?

Murray

--
Murray Spork
Centre for Information Technology Innovation (CITI)
The Redcone Project
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Phone: +61-7-3864-9488
Email: m.spork@q...
Web: http://redcone.gbst.com/

• References:
  • RE: URIs harmful
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
  • Re: URIs harmful
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

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