Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 12:01, Paul Prescod wrote:
> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> > URLs are genuinely successful. The scheme: approach was a good idea.
> > However, I don't think any strong case can be made that URIs are genuine
> > contributors to the success of that information system, except to the
> > extent that they overlap with URLs - and, in many ways, damage the
> > usefulness of URLs.
> I don't really distinguish between URIs and URLs for two reasons:
> 1. I don't want to get into a philisophical debate on the distinction.
> 2. Almost all of the URIs I see are actually URLs.
> When I say that URIs are great I don't mean as opposed to URLs, I mean
> including URLs.
And I'm saying that I find your claims inappropriate. The problems and
discussions we have on a regular basis with URIs are not problems with
URLs. They are additional ugly problems brought on by the philosophical
freight URIs carry.
I see little evidence that URIs - beyond URLs - have contributed much
good to the developing universe.
> People SHOULD treat URLs (even HTTP) ones more like *identifiers* rather
> than *locators* in the sense that you should think of the identifier as
> being welded to the resource and not just a convenient way of finding it
> on the network.
And I disagree to the extent that the *identifiers* contract varies from
the expectations already built into pretty much every piece of Web
software regarding the *locations* contract.
And resources? What? Entities at least have electronic substance.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!