RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14

> provided by HTTP.  The point is that the resource does not exist -- a
> resource is, essentially, an expectation that future representations
> obtained via that interface will have a sameness in relation to past
> representations.

"Via that interface" is particularly useful in clarifying the range of
HTTP.  Clearly, the URL which HTTP uses identifies the *interface*, and
not anything else.

Sometimes people might point to a family portrait hanging on the wall to
identify a particular person in conversation.  The picture frame is
clearly *not* the person, it simply serves as an identification proxy.
When people want to be far less ambiguous in identifying a particular
individual, they tend to use identity proxies which are specialized for
unambiguously identifying individuals (SSN, etc.)

HTTP URLs are very poor identifiers for identifying anything other than
representation-dispenser interfaces.  For interfaces which dispense
representations synchronously in a few widely-accepted mime types, HTTP
URLs are good identifiers.  That is the range of http.

> So, then, how do you bend a spoon? Simple. Drop a graphics processor
> onto the interface such that the representations are morphed.
> The spoon appears to bend because you have no way of distinguishing
> one implementation from another, unless you happen to be the One

This analogy only makes sense if you assume that http is the only way
that anyone can ever communicate a representation of a resource.  If you
are using the example to show why http URLs are poor identifiers for
anything other than representation-dispenser interfaces, you have
succeeded.

-J

Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 16:22:16 UTC