[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No. Unless you build a means and tell the parser to invoke
it, an FPI is a dumb string.
A URzed is always dereferenceable. If we accept that, then what
we call it and the semantic issues go away. One will
get back a document (RDDL, XML Catalog) or just a 404
document. The list there is what the fuss should be about.
But as long as there is a protocol morph on the front of
that string, the system says, "I can dereference this because
the string says I can unless you say I can't" and how do we
tell it not too?
Enough philosophical ostrichism. It is ALWAYS dereferenceable.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
However, if it is at least reasonable to look at URLs as identifiers, then I
think that all the problems you, Len and Simon state are unfortunate, but
merely the symptoms of the choices of one arbiter of URI usage (the W3C), and
not a symptom of fundamental uselessness of URIs themselves. If we'd gone
with FPIs instead, we'd have the same problems in variant forms.
|
