- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:21:38 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 09:04 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > > I'm just tossing this summary "out there" in case it can be of use ... > > As I see it, we've got two models in front of us. TimBL's appears to me > to be self-consistent, as does Roy's. But TimBL doesn't believe that > Roy's is, due to TimBL's perceived inability for HTTP to distinguish > between the resource identified by the URI, and a representation of it. > Given that, I can fully understand his push back on this issue. > > But Roy says that there is no inconsistency in his model, because HTTP > 1.1 was fixed in 1995 to handle this (Content-Location?). > > So as a first step, TimBL should verify that the fix that Roy refers to > does in fact make Roy's model self-consistent. This is why I've asked > Roy for the details. > You misunderstand what I mean by document. I am NOT talking about a representation. When a picture fo a car is available in JPEG and PNG, there is a great value to being identify the picture. It is the picture which is the timbl:Document , either representation (PNG or JPEG). It is not the car. (It is what folks on the street in a lot of cases think of as a "web page") If you go with Roy's idea that the URI identifies the car, then you have no URI left for the document. > If we get that far, then I think the rest of the issue should > practically resolve itself (hah!), as we can weigh the pros and cons of > each. > > Thanks. > > MB > -- > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 5 August 2002 09:21:35 UTC