W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

RE: yet another sidetrack on what a URI identifies

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:30:15 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE0A@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
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 

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.


-----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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:56 UTC