- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 12 Apr 2002 08:48:51 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 08:32, Mark Baker wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 04:58:36PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > it seems fairly constraining to limit the notion of the web to only those > > resources for which GET is a meaningful operation. > > Perhaps we have different definitions of "constraining". 8-) > > Can you identify anything that doesn't have at least one possible > representation of its current state? I can't speak for Keith, but I see another set of problems. A GET is a rather direct mechanism for retrieving a representation, and while it works for HTTP, I'm not sure it _should_ work for every other flavor of URI. The constraint I see is not whether an identified resource must have at least one possible representation, but whether that representation is retrievable directly. In other words, to retrieve a representation of an HTTP URI, I issue a request to something identified as part of the URI. To retrieve a representation of a URN, I may ask questions far more indirectly, possibly querying a system which has a far less immediate connection the resource. I think, though I may be misreading, that systems like DDDS (see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/urn-charter.html ) support the more indirect mode. In a lot of ways, DDDS feels _less_ constraining than HTTP GET. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 08:43:37 UTC