W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: Representation of a secondary resource?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:03:20 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A50ADD67@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <connolly@w3.org>, <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: <public-webarch-comments@w3.org>, <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Dan
> Connolly
> Sent: 27 October, 2004 15:48
> To: Jacek Kopecky
> Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org; Stuart Williams
> Subject: Re: Representation of a secondary resource?
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 04:35, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> > Dan, I think I get your point about secondary resources not 
> constituting
> > a class of resources. It would be helpful IMO if the 
> document mentioned
> > how (of if), given a URI with a fragID, one can get to a 
> representation
> > of the resource. 
> 
> Well, the straightforward way to get a representation of such
> a resource is to find another URI for it, one that doesn't
> have a fragID, and dereference that URI.

And boy isn't it a good thing that we can use http: URIs to
identify any arbitrary resource, or else we'd never be able
to access any representations of 'secondary resources'
identified with fragids, no way, no how...

;-)

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 13:23:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:33 GMT