- From: Daniel R. Tobias <dan@tobias.name>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:49:34 -0400
- To: uri@w3.org
On 2 May 2003 at 10:55, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > The only > > thing one can definitively say about a HTTP URI is what it leads to > > upon dereferencing, which, of course, can be a constantly changing > > thing. > > I disagree. The state of the resource denoted by the HTTP URI may be > constantly changing, such that one may never get the same > representation twice. But the denotation should be presumed to be > reasonably static. Presumed by whom, and why? I've been "burned" several times by having hyperlinks in my own sites to what were relevant documents on the Web at the time I linked them, and later finding them to go to pornography or other annoying or irrelevant content, usually because somebody failed to renew a domain name and it got taken by somebody else with a completely different use. The lack of persistent meaning for URLs is the reason why URNs were created as another form of URI with more persistence. -- == Dan == Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 11:40:41 UTC