- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:41:04 +0000
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
At 09:41 AM 1/15/03 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote: >GK@ninebynine.org (Graham Klyne) writes: > >I found TimBL's posting to be very illuminating: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0043.html > > > >I think there's an important identifier/reference distinction to be > >maintained here. > >I think TimBL has made a fundamental mistake. > >In that post, he appears not to recognize the representation-bound >nature of fragment identifiers and thereby permits himself to conflate >resource identifiers with identifiers tangled in representation issues. >Calling them both URIs is perfectly fine, if the "R" can stand >alternately for "resource" and "representation" - because the nature of >the identification process itself changes as soon as a fragment >identifier is used. > >If this is illumination, it is very dark in here. Hmmm... I think I see your point. I think the distinction made between "identifier" and "reference" is still useful. But the conflation of "resource" with "view"/"fragment", when the latter is representation dependent, is harder to explain consistently. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 11:34:01 UTC