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: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:41:37 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050400-1023-3789452628A811D781E20003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

GK@ninebynine.org (Graham Klyne) writes:
>I think the distinction made between "identifier" and "reference" is
>still useful.

I agree that it's a useful distinction.  I just don't believe that it
should be allowed to obscure other distinctions.

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

It's definitely harder to explain.  In addition to "identifier" and
"reference" you need to talk (and think) about "resource"  and
"representation", which may not have been what you wanted to do
originally.  

I don't mind suggesting that developers stick to URIs proper (no
fragment identifiers) if they can't handle that possible overload.  That
seems a wiser course that just ignoring the interplay between
resource/representation and URI/URI reference.


-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 11:40:43 GMT

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