[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Braywrote:
> Joshua Allen wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, it is exceedingly poor form to use identifiers from
> > the HTTP scheme for things which you don't intend to be dereferenced
> > (via HTTP synchronous GET, no less).
I strongly agree to the (abrupt) extent that "dereferencing" a thing is in
no way the same as transporting _that thing_ across the network. HTTP should
be used for things for which there is an intention that a representation be
made available over the network.
>
> You might be on to something here.
>
> How about for things that you don't have any representations for right
> now but plan to in the near future? How about things that you don't
> have any way of representing right now, but you might someday? What are
> some things that fall into the category "which you don't intend to be
> dereferenced"? -Tim
>
Everything and anything which might be identified by a URI, has a
representation. Perhaps not a good representation but nonetheless a
representation.
Consider:
text/plain; the thing identified by http://example.org/aURI.
or even
text/html; <html><head>...</head><body><p><a
href="">this</a></p></body></html>
Now consider something _without_ a representation:
text/plain; a thing without a representation
:-)
Jonathan
|
