Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The querystring, despite sometimes usage, is not according to specification for referring to different resources. This http://www.location.org/US/MA?city=Boston refers to US/MA city=Boston is a property of US/MA. On 12/9/05, Costello, Roger L. <costello@m...> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > A URI is used to "identify" a resource: > > A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters that > identifies an abstract or physical resource.[1] > > I would like to bound the following discussion by considering just URLs that > use the http scheme. > > As I see it, there are two main approaches to constructing a URL to identify > a resource: > > Approach 1. URL Construction using Parent/Child Relationships > > Here's an example of a URL that uses this approach: > > http://www.location.org/US/MA/Boston > > After the [host] (www.location.org) there are a series of slash-delimited > names. The name to the left of a slash is the parent. The name to the > right of a slash is the child. > > Approach 2. URL Construction using Key-Value Pairs plus Conjunction > > This second approach is exemplified with this URL: > > http://www.location.org?country=US&state=MA&city=Boston > > After the [host] there is the query string delimiter (?) followed by one or > more key=value pairs ANDed together. > > Hybrids of the above two approaches are also possible. For example: > > http://www.location.org/US/MA?city=Boston > > Questions > > (1) The above URLs (I believe) are expressing the same thing - they are > identifying the same resource. So which is "better"? > > (2) As was noted at the top, the purpose of a URL is to "identify" a > resource. Can every resource in the universe be identified using the above > two approaches? Are there resources that do not lend themselves to > identification using the above two approaches? > > /Roger > > [1] http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html > >
|
