- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:19:14 -0500
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Message-Id: <p06230902c4227d28343f@[192.168.1.2]>
At 1:50 AM -0400 4/9/08, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >On Apr 9, 2008, at 12:59 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >>We have no idea. It could be anything, just as a 303 redirect tells >>us nothing about what the URI is obliged to denote. Http-range-14 >>is silent on both of these cases. It only specifies that in the >>case of an unhashed URI returning a 200 response, the URI is >>understood to denote the resource that emits the response. >> > >So an IR is the sort of thing that can emit a response. >Which means it can't be the Microsoft Word document I just worked >on, since as far as I know, such things aren't capable of emitting >anything. > >Do I have this right? Hmm. Yes, indeed you do, given what I was thinking when I wrote those words. But maybe I was thinking slightly wrong. Maybe what I should have said was something like 'the resource responsible for the response' or some such weasel wording. But as I tried to explain to Xiaoshu, I don't think that pinning this category down exactly is really the point. The cases that matter are when the answer to my question, however re-worded, are clearly 'no'. If I want a URI to denote a person or a piece of cheese or a disease or a chemical compound or a galaxy or Sherlock Holmes or a dead Roman emperor or..., then fer sure these aren't going to be either sending me 200 codes or being retrieved to be sent alongside a 200 code or indeed having anything at all to do with http codes of any description. And these are the cases that http-range-14 tells me I have to think carefully about using an unhashed URI to denote, where care must be taken. Imagine walking along a beach and saying, look how extremely wet that ocean is, and how dry the land is; and then ones companion looks down at the beach and says, but where exactly does the ocean begin? Is that wave "ocean"? When it becomes just a swish of water up the sloping sand, is that "ocean"? Isnt it better described as "wet sand"? And there are pebbles and small shells here: is that really "beach" after all? And he refuses to look up at the horizon in any direction, but keeps staring down at the water's edge, looking more and more closely at it and getting more and more unable to say where any kind of edge is. Do you see how frustrating such a companion would be, and how stubbornly unable to appreciate the point one had been trying to convey in the first place, which in any case was itself only a brief remark intended to lead to the idea of building a yacht.... Pat >-Alan -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 18:20:46 UTC