- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:53:02 -0700
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> Careful; you got an *entity body* of type image/png, not a resource. > The resource identified by http://www.w3.org/Icons/WWW/w3c_main > has state that's subject to change by the W3C webmaster, and > you didn't get all that; you cannot, for example, locally simulate > its behaviour indefinitely. > > What you get back from a GET request to a resource is not, in general, a > resource identified by any URI that you can discover; you get back some > content; > an 'entity body' in the HTTP spec terminology. > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec1.html#sec1.3 The term 'entity-body' is actually quite bad because it doesn't really say anything but HTTP enherited it from MIME. The W3C WD "Web Characterization Terminology & Definitions Sheet" http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-terms/ attempts to clarify the definition by calling it a "Resource Manifestation": http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-terms/#Resource1 compared to a "Resource" http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-terms/#Resource However, I think it got it wrong (blaming myself) in defining a client: http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-terms/ where it leans towards the interpretation that a client in some cases (like a mail client) actually gets the resource rather than the manifestation. However, this complication isn't needed as it is consistent to say that "you can *never* get to a resource, only the resource manifestation" as it is easier to define the email case in terms of this than complicating the model. Henrik
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 12:53:39 UTC