- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:31:58 -0700
- To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Cc: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
> If I were suggesting conventions, I personally would always say that an > http: URI should denote a "resource representation dispenser". IMO > this > is the only consistent long-term view. That's okay too, aside from the "dispenser" limitation that ignores resource sinks and bidirectional interactions, provided that you also agree that the Web consists of associations built through indirect identification. In other words, "http" URIs do identify an interface through which representations may pass, but they only do so for the sake of indirectly identifying the resource made available by that interface. As a result, claiming that "http" URIs are defined as an interface does nothing to solve the question of what some person is actually referring to when they make a link using an "http" URI. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 23:32:07 UTC