[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> Mark Baker scripsit:
>
> > It isn't. The picture is one *representation* of the bricks.
> >
> > The URI identifies the resource (some bricks), and a GET returns a
> > representation (an image) of those bricks.
>
> Yes, this is right as far as it goes, but your URL only handles a
> tiny subset of all the bricks there are. Whereas with my
> x-brick: URI scheme, I can address any brick whatsoever, or at
> least any brick that's actually doing work, as opposed to being
> in a brick pile someplace.
>
It seems to me that the benefit of HTTP is that it allows the 'owner' of the
URI, which means the registrant of the DNS entry of the hostname, or owner
of the IP address, either of which is the "host" part of the URI, to make
some statement regarding what the URI is intended _by the owner_ to mean.
Resolving a URI might return a text/plain message:
"This URI is intended to represent the set of all possible bricks"
So it seems to me that an "http:" scheme URI can "mean" whatever its owner
intends it to mean, and it is the responsibility ot the owner to convey that
meaning. Outside of the mechanics of URI resolution, it is probably not
reasonable to treat URIs as other than opaque strings which serve as rather
mundane names.
Jonathan
|
