- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:30:15 -0600
- To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@apache.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
It is a name associated to a function: retrograde GUI. Links are names + functions or in the oldespeak, a link and a locator. It gets messier if one really digs down to the level of the actual thing retrieved and deals with the semantic of locating within a type, eg, a bitmap area locator vs any one of the different kinds of markup locators. The complaints about URIs in XMLNS are well-taken, not wrong. You are only worried that a thing work if it is interpreted in all of your terms and these are implemented consistently. Ok so far, but the reality is the GUI thinks it a URI IS a link and therefore, when it sees the URI, it automatically enables the function. So the user is confused. The W3C confuses them. Your theory is consistent; its implementations aren't. You will be explaining that as long as names used as disambiguating syntax are identical to names paired with functions for locating and retrieving representations of resources. len -----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@apache.org] In any case, the reason we had this discussion originally is because some people were complaining about xmlns identifiers being http URIs because they believed that a URI could not be both a name and a way of retrieving a web page. They are wrong, as demonstrated repeatedly by working practice and the REST model, because they were ignoring the difference between a URI and a GET action on a URI.
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 09:31:05 UTC