- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:21:01 -0500
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: simonstl@simonstl.com, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-tag@w3.org, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 13:59 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: [...] > > The meaning of *every* URI in the web is, practically, > > connected to protocol messages involving that URI, and pretty > > much all the Web protocols use MIME types somehow. > > Protocol messages may be used in the process of determining the meaning, > but there is a difference between the meaning being determined by the > content of the retrieved message versus the mere fact of retrieval. In > determining the meaning of http://simonstl.com/#news , if a GET on > http://simonstl.com/ returns a 200 OK and an HTML document, the mere > fact of retrieval indicates that http://simonstl.com/#news identifies a > location within an HTML document. It therefore cannot, for example, > identify a person or a dog. So don't publish an HTML document there if you want to use it to identify a Dog. Or interpret the HTML spec more liberally, and perhaps get it changed. Simon's point of order is well made. I don't see anything new in what you're saying nor in what I'm saying. For anyone reading this far who hasn't read the first umpteen iterations of this production of "Groundhog Day"[1], some relevant open TAG issues are: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#RDFinXHTML-35 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#fragmentInXML-28 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#abstractComponentRefs-37 [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 18:21:17 UTC