- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:41:37 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
GK@ninebynine.org (Graham Klyne) writes: >I think the distinction made between "identifier" and "reference" is >still useful. I agree that it's a useful distinction. I just don't believe that it should be allowed to obscure other distinctions. >But the conflation of "resource" with "view"/"fragment", when the >latter is representation dependent, is harder to explain consistently. It's definitely harder to explain. In addition to "identifier" and "reference" you need to talk (and think) about "resource" and "representation", which may not have been what you wanted to do originally. I don't mind suggesting that developers stick to URIs proper (no fragment identifiers) if they can't handle that possible overload. That seems a wiser course that just ignoring the interplay between resource/representation and URI/URI reference. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 11:40:43 UTC