Lists Home |
Date Index |
John Cowan wrote:
> 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.
URIs never do conneg. HTTP servers do it on behalf of users.
> >>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/".
Fine. Will you accept it if I say that "http://www.prescod.net" is a URI
that represents me. There happens to be an HTTP server that can serve
representations of me. If you want to make an assertion about a document
then I'd suggest you use this URI instead:
> 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).
You're saying that a bunch of non-contiguous bits in the Google database
is "a document" even before anyone makes the query to combine them into
anything related? That's a pretty abstract definition. If I use CORBA to
access the exact same bits would you say that I am getting a CORBA
representation of a "document?"