- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:06:13 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 14, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> HTTP URIs are URLs, and URLs simply are URIs that also double as >> locators (see RFC 3986). I don't see how this changes the >> definition of >> being an identifier at all. > > I'm not arguing that they aren't identifiers, I'm arguing that when > you > dereference them you get an actual concrete resource, and that saying > that you get a resource representation is pointless and confusing > hair- > splitting which doesn't actually help people understand the specs when > they implement them, since the thoretical "resource" construct never > actually needs to be dealt with in practice. I'd like to see how you would describe a resource that accepts POSTed information without ever returning a "bag of bits", how you are going to describe a resource whose only purpose is to redirect to the "site of the day", or how you would implement a gateway to my friend's air conditioning unit. I could enumerate thousands of examples of how limited your view of the Web really is, but then I already have done that many times. Read the archives. ....Roy
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 20:06:48 UTC