Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Braywrote: > 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). I strongly agree to the (abrupt) extent that "dereferencing" a thing is in no way the same as transporting _that thing_ across the network. HTTP should be used for things for which there is an intention that a representation be made available over the network. > > 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 > Everything and anything which might be identified by a URI, has a representation. Perhaps not a good representation but nonetheless a representation. Consider: text/plain; the thing identified by http://example.org/aURI. or even text/html; <html><head>...</head><body><p><a href="">this</a></p></body></html> Now consider something _without_ a representation: text/plain; a thing without a representation :-) Jonathan
|
