W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Alternative to 303 response: Description-ID: header

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:31:33 +0000
Message-ID: <b6bb4d890712151031l27deff7dy30f2f7d2934335ea@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "David Booth" <dbooth@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org

On Dec 5, 2007 9:44 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> But if one phrases the http-range-14 decision as "When HTTP
> returns  a 200 code, then the URI must refer to (aka denote)
> what it has identified" - which is, I suggest, the true nugget
> or core of that decision, from which all else follows - then
> what you are saying connects with what Sean is saying, and
> responds to his objection quite conclusively.

What do you think of what I said in the following message, with respect to this?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Dec/0067
- [httpRange-14] What is an Information Resource?

When I first read your thoughts on identity vs. denotation I wasn't
really sure I understood why what you were saying is important, but
now that I've written the message above I wonder if my possible
realisation of the nature of an information resource is closely tied
to your point.

In other words, I'm starting to think of information resources in very
mechanistic terms: that it's defined in terms of what happens when a
browser sends a request to a server and all the HTTP magic happens
with caching and variants and media types and bits and bytes.
Information resource is the generic name we give to our concept of
what makes an HTTP URI usable, defined solely in terms of the kinds of
things that HTTP makes available to us, abstracted as much as
possible.

The locational aspect, the tight binding of the HTTP URI scheme to the
HTTP protocol, corresponding to denotation, is therefore what
ultimately defines the identity function of an HTTP URI too. Except,
as you say, it's not really a *therefore* sort of a thing, because
nobody's really stated that link *explicitly* before.

Or do I completely misunderstand? I'm finding this difficult, but I'm hopeful.

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2007 18:31:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:51 GMT