- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:01:39 -0700
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <carine@w3.org>, <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <dorchard@bea.com>, <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>, <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <ylafon@w3.org>
I think the main point is that a URI doesn't imply "location", it is merely an abstraction of something that has identity (I think this is consistent with [1]). The notion of "server" is not in any way integral to this, as I said in my previous mail [2], a server (or servers) may show up in particular resolution mechanism but that is orthogonal to the identifier itself. There is no dependency on client/server or otherwise. Hope this makes sense, Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/#uri-partitioning [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Sep/0101.html >Hmm. I don't think we can have it both ways. If resources >don't travel, >then it's incoherent to say "this resource lives at server X". > In other >words, if something has a location, then it's necessarily >reasonable to >say that it has a location that moves, at least in a system like this. >Keep in mind that with my earlier example, there was on >picture of my on >any server. The only state representing the picture at all was in the >message. So, I think we can have it two ways: > >1) Resources don't travel because they are never localized. >They are just >abstractions with no notion of location or proximity. In this case, >Henrik's proposal that resources don't travel makes sense. > >2) Resources do or often do have a location. In this case, I >think it's >as coherent to say the location is in a message as on a >server. I hope >we aren't tieing the notion of URI and resource to client/server?
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 14:02:13 UTC