- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:48:24 -0500
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sunday 31 March 2002 12:50 am, Larry Masinter wrote: > # You could argue that the implied contract here is outside the > scope of # the architecture, but at some point there is a *need* to > represent a # given resource with a particular set of bits, if only > for reification # so you can discuss the properties of that > representation. > > HTTP uses ETag for this, specifically so that caching can be > managed. Right... the point is that there's no way, given *just* a URI, to guarantee that a resource has but a single given representation. There are cases where this is obviously less than perfect. Ideally, there'd be something akin to Etag standardized for use in URI's. > URIs weren't designed to be the basis for knowledge representation, > so the attempts to use them for such a purpose aren't very > successful. That's an orthoganal issue to the issue of identity raised above.
Received on Sunday, 31 March 2002 02:51:15 UTC