- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:35:21 -0700
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "David Orchard" <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > > > A hypermedia approach would have explicitly declared the "?" URI in > the former representation with some link metadata called > "metadata-record" or some such, e.g. <a rel="metadata" href="?" /> think the thing being neglected in this discussion is that the reason for the naming convention is that HTTP based resolution may not be always appropriate for these identifiers. You can't do an HTTP request to determine that another resolution mechanism would have been more reliable or efficient. I think that you guys are talking about solving a different problem than the XRI team is trying to solve. It isn't about interpreting the representation for purposes of processing the resource. It's about interpreting the identifier itself, for purposes of eventual dereferencing. Can you offer a suggestion that meets the requirements of the applicant and also preserves the benefits of an HTTP URI? Paul Prescod
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2008 05:36:02 UTC