[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Borden wrote,
> 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.
Who cares what the owner means. There's nothing to stop anyone else
using that very same URI to mean something else. That's why URIs can't
on their own convey meaning. To get that you need semantic agreement
between the producers and the consumers of the URIs.
Note what's doing the work here: the agreement, not any form of
administrative control over any resource on the end of the URI. If
enough people choose to interpret,
http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/01/Bricks/
as "denoting the class of people who don't have a firm grip on the
concept of naming", then that's what it means (for them) no matter
what Mark might think. That's not in and of itself a problem, but it
could be, eg. if Mark wanted to start talking to one of that group
about bricks.
Cheers,
Miles
--
Miles Sabin InterX
Internet Systems Architect 27 Great West Road
+44 (0)20 8817 4030 Middx, TW8 9AS, UK
msabin@interx.com http://www.interx.com/
|
