[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray wrote:
> 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).
>
>
> 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
Thanks Tim - I guess that answers the question I just sent ;-)
But I would have thought that a more elegant solution in the cases you
cite above would merely be to model those future dereferencable
resources as a property of the original non-dereferancable resource - if
and when they come on-line?
Murray
--
Murray Spork
Centre for Information Technology Innovation (CITI)
The Redcone Project
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Phone: +61-7-3864-9488
Email: m.spork@qut.edu.au
Web: http://redcone.gbst.com/
|
