W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

Re: URI/URI ref distinction (was on "How to Compare Uniform Resource Identifiers")

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:41:04 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030115163623.00a579f0@127.0.0.1>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

At 09:41 AM 1/15/03 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

>GK@ninebynine.org (Graham Klyne) writes:
> >I found TimBL's posting to be very illuminating:
> >
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0043.html
> >
> >I think there's an important identifier/reference distinction to be
> >maintained here.
>
>I think TimBL has made a fundamental mistake.
>
>In that post, he appears not to recognize the representation-bound
>nature of fragment identifiers and thereby permits himself to conflate
>resource identifiers with identifiers tangled in representation issues.
>Calling them both URIs is perfectly fine, if the "R" can stand
>alternately for "resource" and "representation" - because the nature of
>the identification process itself changes as soon as a fragment
>identifier is used.
>
>If this is illumination, it is very dark in here.

Hmmm... I think I see your point.

I think the distinction made between "identifier" and "reference" is still 
useful.

But the conflation of "resource" with "view"/"fragment", when the latter is 
representation dependent, is harder to explain consistently.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 11:34:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT