W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2004

FW: fragment prose proposal

From: Tony Hammond <thammond_2004@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:32:26 +0000
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <BAY15-F70aNEVJpjc0D00000a01@hotmail.com>

Hi Graham:

>So even if you assert that the resource identified by a given URI has no
>retrievable representation, I think it's fairly trivial to construct an
>environment in which there *is* a retrievable representation for what that
>URI denotes (unless its denotation is so obscure as to defy having any
>reasonable representation, but that doesn't seem very useful to me).

You guys are gonna have to educate me. If (as you seem to be asserting) one 
can plug in any old retrieval mechanism for a self-declared 
non-dereferenceable scheme (such as INFO), then presumably one could do the 
same wrt any other scheme - e.g. construct an FTP retrieval mechanism 
against an HTTP URI, or a Handle retrieval mechanism, or whatever. Am I 
missing something here or don't things begin to fall apart if just any ad 
hoc retrieval mechanisms are recognized client side? What is the point then 
of a URI scheme if clients can override any given protocol and do as they 
want? Isn't that just a smidgen close to anarchy?

Tony

ps/
BTW - Isn't it marvelous that absolutlely /no/ browsers can recognize a 
generic URI string, even now some ten years after? :~) All of 'em just 
manage to scrape through with a few hard-wired schemes (the 'GETables') 
which they deign to recognize. Quite surprised that even now the 
standards-compliant-wannabe clients simply cannot recognize a URI string in 
context. What does that say about the state of the Web?

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband
Received on Saturday, 28 February 2004 13:33:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC