- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:51:02 -0800
- To: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>In response to your comments about the nature of resources, we plan to >remove from the binding spec all language that suggests that resources are >storage entities. We think that otherwise, the spec is consistent with the >view that a resource is a mapping function. > >We will change the definition of binding to state explicitly that it is not >a resource, but is rather part of the state of a collection resource. >Although I think this conflicts with your position, it at least makes our >position clearer. Almost. Anything that is identifiable by a URI is a resource, which pretty much covers everything that can be identified as a concept. So, you are better off not explicitly saying that a binding is not a resource. What you want to say is simply that the target of the bind requests is the collection resource, and the bindings are considered to be part of the state of that collection for the purposes of those requests. Whether or not those bindings identify a resource, or are resources in themselves, is not relevent during the scope of the client/server conversation. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2000 16:51:48 UTC