Re: httpRange-14 , what's the problem

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