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

RE: httpRange proposed text

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:03:53 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B716@HQ5>
To: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

The URI can identify.  It cannot classify.  That is 
where it falls short of being a word in the sense 
Fielding asserts.   It is reliable unless overloaded. 
URNs on the other hand, should be able to classify 
given a coding agreement.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org]

> The intent seems good, but how on earth do you build this confidence? 
> By relying on the human-language semantics of the opaque part of the 
> URI?

Absolutely not.  Joshua didn't mean that you knew what each URI meant by 
just looking at it -- he meant (I think/hope!) that you know from the 
architecture that the two occurrences of the URI will identify the same 
thing, whatever that is.  There is no ambiguity built into the 
architecture itself.  This is a core principle fo the Web which we seem 
to be in danger of forgetting.
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 09:04:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT