- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:59:02 +0100
- To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "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 2008-07 -26, at 06:35, Paul Prescod 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. I suspect that is because you regard the HTTP resolution mechanism as fixed. That is relative, though. The XRI people feel capable of changing, if necessary, of changing the XRI resolution mechanism. That is because the XRI people are the design authority. They feel less confident that they can change (extend, morph, adapt, etc) the HTTP resolution protocol. The HTTP people feel capable of changing, if necessary, of changing the HTTP resolution mechanism. That is because HTTP people are the design authority for HTTP. They feel less confident that they can change (extend, morph, adapt, etc) the XRI resolution protocol. Of course, XRI people can become HTTP people. There are very many people using HTTP URIs. When there is a problem, that there needs to be different functionality, then there will be a large call for a change. XRI folks can certainly add to others' their criteria and join the conversation about how the system may need to be changes and supported in the future. Tim > [...]
Received on Sunday, 27 July 2008 07:59:41 UTC