- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:35:45 -0700
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
- CC: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
I know you were trying to help but I don't think you clarified the argument much! Joshua Allen wrote: > > The > proponents of expanding the range of http are making three generalized > arguments: As Roy pointed out after your message, the range of HTTP is already far more than documents. > A. Some people claim that *all* resources which one would care to > identify can (and should) be dealt with through REST, and therefore rule > #2 applies. This is not an argument for expanding the range of HTTP. It is an argument for expanding the *usage* of HTTP. > B. Some people claim that the idea of "hypermedia" can (and should) be > ambiguous enough to encompass all named things, and therefore rule #1 > applies. Just give it a new mime-type (object/car). Mime types are for media-types, not resource types. I would say that the term "hypermedia" also applies to media-types, not resource types. > C. Some people claim that identity is inherently ambiguous, and > therefore URIs are meaningless to begin with. Miles already handled this one. I think that the real point of argument is D: D. Does HTTP address abstract resources that have representations or does it address only documents. * http://www.w3.org/2002/07/15-tag-summary#L3330 DC: RF, so you conclude I can point to my car with an HTTP URI? RF: Yes. TBL: I have in my mind a consistent model where HTTP URI points to a document about a car. I don't have a consistent system where HTTP URIs designate cars. -- Come discuss XML and REST web services at: Open Source Conference: July 22-26, 2002, conferences.oreillynet.com Extreme Markup: Aug 4-9, 2002, www.extrememarkup.com/extreme/
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 21:36:40 UTC