[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tuesday 12 February 2002 18:41, you wrote:
> > > Thought why he wouldn't want it to identify himself, rather than an
> > > HTML page is a different question. Certainly just *because* the GET
> > > returns an HTML when you ask it for that (all browsers ask for
> > > text/html), doesn't mean that the URI identifies the HTML. HTML is one
> > > *representation* of the resource, not necessarily the resource itself.
> >
> > But therein lies the problem. It could spurt out a nice HTML page about
> > me with pictures and everything, but all that static data can do is
> > describe me.
>
> What else would you expect of a digital representation?
I'm not a string of bits and can't be represented as such, but many
interfaces to me can be approximated by exchanging strings of bits. Instead
of a GET producing some human-readable document about me, I want a whole list
of operations to be made available - one of which may be the chance to read
my egotistical self-description, but that is in no way special, and is indeed
the least useful one there!
> > The static data could contain my phone number allowing me to be rung, but
> > then that's escaping the Web model.
>
> No, that's exactly the Web model, especially if the link to your phone
> number were typed;
>
> <a href="urn:oid:1.2.826.0.1.4072548.2.0"
> rel="http://phone.org/phonenum";>
> Call me</a>
But how can software resolve that?
It'd have more luck with a resolvable URI for my phone, such as
phone:+447974437842 - not sure if that syntax is exactly correct, RFC.net is
being slow right now, but there is a URI schema for telephone numbers.
> You could, if you wanted;
>
> telnet alaric-snell.com 80
>
> GET urn:oid:1.2.826.0.1.4072548.2.0 HTTP/1.1
>
> response;
>
> HTTP/1.1 305 Use Proxy
> Location: http://some-mobile-phone-provider.com
>
> But sure, it's always easiest to use an HTTP scheme URI because you
> don't have to worry about this boostrapping problem. For example,
> there is no reason why your phone couldn't be identified by;
>
> http://some-mobile-phone-provider.com/subscriber/1.2.826.0.1.4072548.2.0
But then I'm dependent on some-mobile-phone-provider.com (a centralised
resource) for the resolveability of my mobile phone.
I prefer phone: URLs for this... HTTP isn't a useful protocol for talking to
a mobile phone; it's even a bit heavyweight for sending an SMS (which has
very UDP semantics :-)
>
> MB
>
ABS
--
Alaric B. Snell
http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software
|
