- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 18:39:29 +0200
- To: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto@gmuer.ch>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 22:54 Europe/Budapest, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The document http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI has following > exercise: > >> 2) What does "http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/magritte.gif" identify? >> >> (...) >> 6. A representation as a series of 341632 bits in of a photo of a >> painting >> 7. Validly 4, 5 and 6 but not 1 > According to the document the correct answer is 7 >> 2:7 Note here the web tolerates vagueness along the axis of different >> representations of teh same image, but not of semantic level betwen >> the image and the pipe. > > I'm confused that the URI could identify 6. If the server serving the > address is smart enough to return a jpeg insted of gif - if according > to the http-accept header my browser is not capable to interpret a gif > - - the URI would also identify "A representation as a series of > [size-of-jpeg] bits in of a photo of a painting" and the URI is > ambiguos. > > I think a HTTP-URI should identify a document as the abstract entity > that all of the possible result of a http-request represent, that is > the document independently of encoding and language. That is a good way of running a server. that is what is represented on our server by the URI without a ".gif". But it is also very useful to have a URI specifically for the GIF version. So the best is to have both. But use the generic one wherever you can... tim > Cheers, > Reto > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQE+zTkCD1pReGFYfq4RApOMAKCmdlvAAIDJRbVZTybmn0GVLI4UKACgzDnt > JbOf+nxT4dZ7IyA48VRRpJs= > =pWZ/ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 16:52:04 UTC