Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Maybe, maybe not. But either way, there's nothing particularly special
> about http: URIs in this respect ... an ftp: or mailto: or whatever
> URI would do just as well (or badly, depending on your POV).
The important point here is that the HTTP protocol has features that
explicitly support the resource/representation distinction, whereas FTP
doesn't (and mailto: doesn't even have a standard resolution mechanism).
For example, I could assert that this URI identified those bricks
(don't try to resolve it);
But since FTP only knows how to identify files, it won't allow me to add
an alternate representation, say an HTML file, like HTTP does with
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. firstname.lastname@example.org