OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] URIs are simply names was: Re: [xml-dev] "Abstract" URIs

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

On Wednesday 13 February 2002 10:40 am, Mark Baker wrote:
> > Which is perfectly fine... the question though is how do I refer
> > to a *specific* digtal resource reliably, such that I can always
> > retrieve a represenation that it is a copy of the original
> > resource? Using a URI, how can I reliably point to foo.gif?
> Use the URI provided in the Content-Location header of the response,
> if any.
> From RFC 2616, Sec 14.14;
>   "A server SHOULD provide a Content-Location for the
>    variant corresponding to the response entity; especially in the
> case where a resource has multiple entities associated with it, and
> those entities actually have separate locations by which they might
> be individually accessed, the server SHOULD provide a
> Content-Location for the particular variant which is returned."
> If a specific URI for the representation isn't provided, then your
> only choice is for you to identify it yourself by hanging that
> content off of your own web server.

I hope you see the point here though.... there is *no* reliable way to 
send a URI to a specific resource representation as the web would 
exist in a world of purely abstract URI's. To my mind, that is BAD 
(Broken As Designed). Abstract URI's are a powerful thing, but they 
shouldn't/cannot be the *only* thing.... (maybe that's why we used to 
have URL, URI, URN?)


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS