- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:41:10 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Roy Fielding writes: > > This Platonic Form of a resource can, however, leave us without a > > spoon to bend, even given a representation of spoons, as soon as we > > cross into the (perhaps) more concrete territory of URI references. > > Ugh, let's not. View-based fragments are not the same resource. The > scene wouldn't be very interesting if he just picked up a warped > mirror. Changing the interface (instead of what the interface > produces) is a different topic. I'm afraid it's not a different topic in practice. Few people or systems actually treat the difference between URIs and URI references as significant except in the one very small though certainly frequent context of browsers splitting off the URI reference in making their request. Processors for RDF statements and XML namespaces as well as humans looking for information are quite likely to have to deal with these problems, and treating them as mere representation issues isn't likely to go over well with people who (knowingly or not) prefer Hume's valuing of experience to Plato's valuing of abstract madness. The disconnect between URI theory and practice seems itself insoluble. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by talk of warped mirrors. Enough, I guess - if you all want to keep the URI issue alive, that's very much your problem. As I've suggested earlier that a key aspect of the problem with URIs is the hall of mirrors conversations it tends to produce, perpetuating that madness is a poor idea. I'll retreat to the countryside and forage for URLs. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 18:41:12 UTC