W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

Re: "resolution mechanism"

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: 12 Apr 2002 08:48:51 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1018615738.982.90.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 08:32, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 04:58:36PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > it seems fairly constraining to limit the notion of the web to only those
> > resources for which GET is a meaningful operation.
> 
> Perhaps we have different definitions of "constraining". 8-)
> 
> Can you identify anything that doesn't have at least one possible
> representation of its current state?

I can't speak for Keith, but I see another set of problems.

A GET is a rather direct mechanism for retrieving a representation, and
while it works for HTTP, I'm not sure it _should_ work for every other
flavor of URI.

The constraint I see is not whether an identified resource must have at
least one possible representation, but whether that representation is
retrievable directly.  In other words, to retrieve a representation of
an HTTP URI, I issue a request to something identified as part of the
URI.  To retrieve a representation of a URN, I may ask questions far
more indirectly, possibly querying a system which has a far less
immediate connection the resource.

I think, though I may be misreading, that systems like DDDS (see
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/urn-charter.html ) support the more
indirect mode.  In a lot of ways, DDDS feels _less_ constraining than
HTTP GET.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 08:43:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT