- From: Miles Sabin <msabin@interx.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:48:16 -0000
- To: "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>
- Cc: "Bill Janssen" <janssen@parc.xerox.com>, "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Michael Mealling wrote, > Miles Sabin wrote, > > Yes, but that's a pretty imperialist definition given that > > *anything* can be identified by a URI (for suitable readings of > > 'can'). I don't see any good reason to accept it. > > Accept whatever you want. But the Apps area, the industry and most > other standards bodies accept that definition. The web is much more > than your browser.... I don't disagree, but there's a world of difference (literally) between "not just a browser" and "everything that could conceivably be addressed via some URI scheme or other". Given the RFC 2396 definition, A resource can be anything that has identity. Familiar examples include an electronic document, an image, a service (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a collection of other resources. Not all resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound books in a library can also be considered resources. that's potentially everything, period, at which point the term becomes useless. Since when did the definition of the web stretch so wide that things which aren't even network retrievable are considered to be part of it? Cheers, Miles -- Miles Sabin InterX Internet Systems Architect 27 Great West Road +44 (0)20 8817 4030 Middx, TW8 9AS, UK msabin@interx.com http://www.interx.com/
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 13:49:13 UTC