- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:33:45 -0400
- To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>
- 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 7/26/08, Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> wrote: > 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. In this thread we're just talking about hypermedia in the context of Henry's question about out of band agreement on the meaning of names. That seems a couple levels detached from the more general XRI-and-the-Web issue. > Can you offer a suggestion that meets the requirements of the > applicant and also preserves the benefits of an HTTP URI? Which requirements? (and may I suggest a new thread, or reusing an existing one?) Mark.
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2008 06:34:20 UTC