- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:25:48 -0800
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "Hrvoje Simic" <hrvoje.simic@zg.hinet.hr>, <uri@w3.org>
> I assumed that the query was semantically indistinguishable from the rest > of the path -- part of what Hrvroje said? -- how they are interpreted is > entirely up to the software the provides access to resources for the > indicated authority. Anything more, I think, is just a convenient > convention, and not bound to anything fundamental in the nature of form of > URI. Not entirely; relative URIs treat path segments and query components very differently. This indirectly suggested to me that there might be the concept of a "located resource" which differs from the more discussed "identified resource". Thinking about it more, I'm not at all sure that I'm not just offering guidelines as well; the semantics are determined by the server alone; it's just that some common conventions are provided for making URIs more useful, especially when using them to locate something. > E.g. I think a web server could legitimately serve *files* with names (and > corresponding URIs) that just happened to contain substrings that look like > URI query elements. Well, a Web server can do anything it wants behind the scenes; what matters is the interface that the URI exposes. > Hence, in the general case, reordering of queries must be regarded as > significant (i.e. different URIs), even though some severs may choose to > return values that are invariant under reordering of same. Oh, I agree completely; it's completely up to the server.
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 12:26:07 UTC