Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Patrick Stickler wrote: > > On 2002-02-14 17:37, "ext Paul Prescod" <paul@p...> wrote: > > > Patrick Stickler wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> The problem here is that if I dereference some URI expecting to > >> access that actual resource, and get some metadata or RDDL document > >> or something else in its place, how do I necessarily know that > >> that is *not* in fact the resource? > > > > You never, ever, ever get the actual resource. So it's easy to know. ;) > > This is hardly a consensus view. It is the Web Architecture. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Generic.html http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html You can argue that it should not be. But it is. >... > A mistake? Is the concept of the language "English" ever going > to be a GETable resource? Nope. Resources are never GETable. But I could see a representation of English being GET-able. Perhaps a Web document pointing to a grammar, a dictionary etc. Of course those are not a complete representation of everything that English is. But they are nevertheless a representation. >... > The (ab)use of URLs for namespaces with the expectation that they > should resolve to anything -- based on some non-standard attribution > of significance to that namespace such as denoting a vocabulary or > schema -- is a hack. It may be a clever hack, but it's a hack > nonetheless. I see no problem with having human readable documentation as the representation of the namespace resource. I do agree that using HTTP URIs causes quite a bit of confusion for people who think that the representation is the resource, which is most people. So it is somewhat an argument of theory versus practice. Paul Prescod
|
