briefly and somewhat belatedly... by way of excuse, the subject line isn't all that helpful. On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 21:59 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: [...] > Suppose I and my friend start a club, and we agree that we will keep > duplicate copies of all the club records under the top-level 'club' > directory on our respective web-sites. That is, we agree that > http://www.thompson-example.org/club/xxx.html > and > http://www.sabbatini-example.org/club/xxx.html > will identify the same resource and, to the best of our ability, that > we will respond with identical messages to GET requests to those > URIs. Furthermore we make it a condition of joining our club that new > members do likewise. > > Is this fundamentally at variance with Web Architecture? I don't > think so. AWWW does say [1] > > "Good practice: Avoiding URI aliases > > A URI owner SHOULD NOT associate arbitrarily different URIs with > the same resource." > > but in this case the two URIs are _not_ arbitrarily different, they > are in fact non-arbitrarily similar. I think they *are* aliases, and they fall under "should not" but ARK goes to some length to explain why the exception; in short: because there is no one social entity that would serve as domain holder. more when I find time, I hope... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Thursday, 24 July 2008 17:05:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:56:18 GMT