• To: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@r...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:00:45 -0500
• References: <200202131540.KAA09579@m...> <E16b1tq-0000Id-00@s...>

Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
>
> I hope you see the point here though.... there is *no* reliable way to
> send a URI to a specific resource representation as the web would
> exist in a world of purely abstract URI's. To my mind, that is BAD
> (Broken As Designed). Abstract URI's are a powerful thing, but they
> shouldn't/cannot be the *only* thing.... (maybe that's why we used to
> have URL, URI, URN?)
>

I am failing to see the issue. The "data:" URI scheme is intended to
represent some literal string of characters e.g.

"data:text/xml;<this>is an exampke</this>"

but moreover, we have URIs _and_ MIME messages. Do we need more?

Jonathan

• References:
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by Date: Re: Architectural Forms, A Summary
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by thread: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread