Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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. ;) If you get back an HTML page then by definition the owner of that site has said that's a representation of the resource (whether it be you, or an XML namespace or a Real Document). >.... > It should be clear up front what "flavor" of URI you have, and > whether it does or does not denote some retrievable resource > or whether it denotes some abstract resource -- or if it is > in fact the actual resource (consider a data: URI). And that > should be based on a formal classification of URI schemes and > URI classes. I was arguing that two years ago. And I still see some virtue in it. BUT you are not making the argument correctly based on the Web's architecture. Resources are never returned. An "abstract" resource is a resource that has no GET-able representation right now. Arguably choosing to make a resource abstract is a mistake because later you don't have the option of making it GET-able, as some people have done with XML namespaces. Paul Prescod
|
