I just came accros your mention of "Universal Document Identifier" in http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html ... It seems to me that what is identified is not a document, but a shared memory region, a virtual location where a document can conceptually be stored. Something very much like a file, actually. So why not "Universal Filename" ? I have a lot of trouble with this talk of URI's naming documents, because a documents seem like static things. Of course we get this whole weird notion of "living documents" from this. The popular web lingo seems to have gravitated toward the location terminology: it's all about "visiting" "sites" with "addresses". People have no problem understanding why they should keep their advertised address constant; it's the idea of deep-linking (that their site might be considered to be made up smaller, also-addressible locations, even down to fragment ids) that hasn't, I think, really sunk into the public consciousness. (after all, a few clicks of navigation isn't so bad for humans.) ruminatingly, -- sandroReceived on Wednesday, 25 December 2002 15:05:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:08:48 GMT