[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod wrote:
> Agreed. The question is whether *you* can have a URI which, when someone
> does a GET on it, returns an HTML page. I don't see why not.
I have no problem with that. My self URI doesn't do content
negotiation, so GET will return a topic map representation.
>>Again, fair enough. But the use of "description" is an equivoque: the
>>HTML you can GET from http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/ is a representation
>>of a certain resource of type "hyperdocument".
>
> That is not true.
It may not be true of every such URI, but it is true of the
specific URI "http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/";.
> The thing you get back is an HTML rendition of the set of all documents
> with foo and bar in them indexed by Google. If Google supports conneg, I
> can ask for an XML rendition too. The "resource" is neither of type HTML
> nor hyperdocument nor XML. It isn't even IMPLEMENTED that way. It is
> implemented as a set of probably non-contiguous bits in a Big Honking
> Database.
It's not implemented as a static file, of course. But it is still a
document (with dynamic content, to be sure) as opposed to a brick or a
person or Google Inc. or the words "foo bar". We interact with it
by reading it (or having it read to us).
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
