RE: now:// (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14)


Thanks for responding, I really appreciate it.  I also haven't had as much
time to work on architecture documents I need to work on.

I still just don't get it.  I've read through your response a whole bunch of
times - 3 coffees worth while listening to some good neuron stimulating St.
Germain and even another coffee with Tim Bray.  I could write up responses
to your responses, and I have questions about just about everything you
said - like I think the car analogy reinforces my position.  And I further
don't think the lifecycle of how an author deals with changing and
propagating the changed intent of a URI has been explored enough.

But it's truly time to stick a fork into this debate.  I just don't get it.
I do think we are awfully close in position, believe it or not.  However, to
finish and simply for the record, my central misunderstanding is why an
author shouldn't use a non-deferenceable scheme for URIs when their intent
is the URI is non-dereferencable, and use dereferenceable schemes when the
intent is dereferencing, particularly if the author may change the intent of
the URI.  Because it seems to me the author wants the client/client software
to now do something (like deref) different when they now provide
representations, and changing the identifier is a great way to indicate that
intention.  I don't think that the cost of deploying a non-dereferencable
scheme would be high - there's no methods of deref to define or have
software understand.  And I do believe that http: URIs can and should be
used for identifiers.

Anyways, enough's enough.  Thanks again.  Back to our regulary scheduled
architecture document writing and day (:-) jobs.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Roy T. Fielding
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:27 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: now:// (was lack of consensus on
> httpRange-14)
> > I apologize in advance for being clearly dense on this subject.  It
> > certainly is helpful for me to understand this area a
> little better.  And
> > I
> > think we're getting close to the areas of my misunderstanding.
> Oh, bugger -- I guess I have to respond to this one because
> you obviously
> spent a long time writing it while I was writing the last one
> saying that
> I wouldn't respond any further.  The chances of me ever having time to
> work on the architecture document are approaching nil.

> Can we please stick a fork in this issue?

Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 18:46:27 UTC