W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 2001

RE: Requirements for reliable message delivery

From: Miles Sabin <msabin@interx.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:48:16 -0000
To: "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>
Cc: "Bill Janssen" <janssen@parc.xerox.com>, "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <69B15B675E99D411A4110008C786DA23020CC8EE@exwest_01.interx.com>
Michael Mealling wrote,
> Miles Sabin wrote,
> > Yes, but that's a pretty imperialist definition given that 
> > *anything* can be identified by a URI (for suitable readings of 
> > 'can'). I don't see any good reason to accept it.
> Accept whatever you want. But the Apps area, the industry and most 
> other standards bodies accept that definition. The web is much more 
> than your browser....

I don't disagree, but there's a world of difference (literally) 
between "not just a browser" and "everything that could conceivably be 
addressed via some URI scheme or other".

Given the RFC 2396 definition,

  A resource can be anything that has identity.  Familiar examples 
  include an electronic document, an image, a service (e.g., "today's 
  weather report for Los Angeles"), and a collection of other 
  resources.  Not all resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., human 
  beings, corporations, and bound books in a library can also be 
  considered resources.

that's potentially everything, period, at which point the term
becomes useless.

Since when did the definition of the web stretch so wide that things 
which aren't even network retrievable are considered to be part of it?



Miles Sabin                                     InterX
Internet Systems Architect                      27 Great West Road
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                             Middx, TW8 9AS, UK
msabin@interx.com                               http://www.interx.com/
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 13:49:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:01 UTC