RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14)

Mark,

I think Micah was asking a reasonable and common question, and deserves a
better answer than what you provided.  Simply quoting a finding probably
doesn't help people understand the requirements/properties that are met by
findings and principles.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Mark Baker
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 5:27 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 01:38:47PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > I think the idea is to have URIs that are clearly not
> dereferencable [...]
>
> I think that's a bad idea.  I've never met an identifier that couldn't
> benefit from being dereferenceable.  As the first TAG finding said;
>
>   "o URI's for important resources should be dereferencable.
>    o Dereferencing URI's for important abstract concepts (for example,
>      Internet protocol parameters) should return human and/or machine
>      readable representations that describe the nature and purpose of
>      those resources."
>    -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/01-uriMediaType-9
>
> Thanks.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
>

Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 23:22:04 UTC