Re: ERB call on addressing
At 02:34 AM 3/25/97 GMT, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>It really boils down to whether you think the Xptr is addressing
>something or not.
Yup. Obviously. Also, it's a query. I totally fail to see the
utility, or even the existence, of a distinction between an
address and a query. Given the URL
tell me please, is that an address or a query?
>I have no problems with # and ?. I do not see how a query can name
>a sub-resource though, or how you can query a resource addressed
I have no trouble with this at all. On the web, a resource is,
by definition, something that can be addressed. So what a URL
points at is a resource. By definition, what an Xptr points at
is also a resource. Our innovation is to standardize (unlike
the web) a rich query-or-address-call-it-what-you-will for XML docs
which operates at a finer level of granularity than the URL.
Thus it makes intuitive sense, and is logically clean, to call
what the URL+Xptr gets you a sub-resource of the resource that
the URL gets you.
>Using ";" is accepted practise, and provides the right semantics
>for XML (addressing)
Based on my reading of the RFC's and my experience operating servers
and using the web, I disagree with both halves of this sentence.
Bill Smith has raised the issue of the RFC as a moving target, sigh...
existing RFCs talk of
but "this year's model" is quite different. However, no matter how you
cut it, ";" flags a vaguely-specified "parameter" we want something with
a highly-precise, and new-to-the-web, semantic. Smells like new syntax
to me. Also, ';' is obviously a moving target, which is another reason
to stay away from it.
BTW, you Inso and Sun guys ought to raise a ruckus with TimBL and
Roy Fielding, n'est-ce pas?