RE: What is at the end of the namespace?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext roconnor@Math.Berkeley.EDU 
> [mailto:roconnor@Math.Berkeley.EDU]
> Sent: 16 November, 2001 03:26
> To: www-talk@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What is at the end of the namespace?
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> > > Yes, URIs *may* denote abstract resources. No, HTTP URLs 
> may *not*.
> >
> > Patrick, as an author of both of those specifications, I can
> > definitively state that what you are saying does not match 
> what I intended
> > when I wrote the sections to which you have referred.
> 
> I must admit that I always thought that HTTP URIs were some retrivable
> resouce, but after looking at the introduction to  RFC 2068:
> 
>    Practical information systems require more functionality 
> than simple
>    retrieval, including search, front-end update, and annotation. HTTP
>    allows an open-ended set of methods that indicate the purpose of a
>    request.
> 
> It seems that Sean is right.  HTTP URIs seem like they could mean
> anything.

I don't read it that way at all! I think you are reading your
own interpretation into the language, not judging what it
actually says.

A 'request' means that something should be provided as a response
to that 'request'. You can't 'request' an abstract entity. You
can only reference it.

Sorry, I've been through the various RFCs so many times I've
lost count, and even given the recent "clarification" just cannot
get an overall reading that says HTTP URIs are intended to 
denote abstract concepts.

Nope. Sorry. And there seem to be quite a few folks out there
who understand HTTP URIs the same way as me. I'd wager the 
majority of people. Hence the bruhaha about why namespace
URIs fail to resolve to stuff.

Patrick

Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 09:02:50 UTC