Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[Mike Brown] > Thomas B. Passin wrote: > > A URI is intended to allow you to "identify" something, and that something > > does not have to be a retrievable resource. It can be abstract. A URL is a > > special case that gives you an identifier that does work for retrieving an > > actual resource. > > Just to clarify, > > 'Retrieval' is the wrong word here. 'Access' is better -- The resource may be > too intangible for its representation to be a retrievable entity, and the > primary access method as implied by the scheme may not even facilitate > retrieval (or a meaningful response of any kind) at all. For example, > I'll go along with you - "access" will do for me. Come to think of it, an email address is not a URI scheme, is it? It is only the mailto:xxx@yyy that would a URI. Cheers, Tom P
|
