Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > ... > > Oh, come now. Were the authors of that statement thinking "GET vs. any > possible arbitrary verb that might every be added to HTTP" or "GET vs. POST"?! Actually it was probably "GET vs. any possible arbitrary verb that might ever be added to SOAP." The point is that the Web has a _single_ namespace. Every URI identifies one resource. If you put an MGET there, then you've got two resources at the same URI: "X" and "metadata about X". What if I want to refer to "metadata about X" as its own first-class resource, do I need a whole new URI scheme? > I'm going to be hard to convince that it was the former. > > And this argument is not even applicable against MGET because with > MGET documents *are* identified by URI! > > HTTP GET {URI} -> resource > HTTP MGET {URI} -> description Look, if I want to say that {URI} is wrong, then I can express that {URI} <full:of> shit Now what if I want to say that the URI's metadata is wrong? If I don't have a URI for that metadata, I can't do it. What if I want to say that the document is authored by one person but the metadata is authored by another? You've said that "sometimes" the metdadata could have its own URI. This implies that the person owning the metadata can choose whether other people can make statements about it. But that's not the way the Web works. If the thing is on the Web, people should be able to make statements about it, whether the owner wants them to or not. Paul PrescodReceived on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 20:42:55 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:08:50 GMT