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

RE: httpRange-14 , what's the problem

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:47:15 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105DCD44F@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "www-tag" <www-tag@w3.org>

> "for all http URI x, x identifies document"
> is false if there exists one http URI for which it is false.  Well,

I hope TAG recognizes that this is a specious strawman argument which
Roy set up so that he could declare:

> Therefore, the assertion is false and this discussion is over.  If the

Too bad nobody made that assertion.  I will repeat verbatim:

"2. Everyone also agrees that "http: URIs" should be strongly preferred
for identifying resources, IF those resources are most naturally dealt
with through transfers of representational state.  (In other words, if
you envision interacting with the resource primarily through a web
browser UI and synchronous request+response pairs, use the http:
scheme)"

>It merely proves that the arguments made about the range of http being 
>limited are simply false and do not deserve any more of our time.

You seem to be agreeing, though that it certainly does NOT prove that
http is UNLIMITED.  Everyone agrees that http: identifiers *could* be
used for everything.  It's the *should* part that people are arguing
about.

> This is not, in any way, a suggestion that all resources should be in
> the http scheme space.

I am glad you agree.  I believe that my earlier points 1 and 2 are the
most sensible guidance we can give people about when they should choose
to use http identifiers.
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 18:47:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:09 GMT