[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In practice, this sort of mostly works, but I think the URI folks are
also pretty insistent on Uniform (as in syntax) rather than Universal
(as in semantics) for their identifiers.
There are certainly a number of ways that URIs don't reliably always
give the exact same result, even at an abstract resource level.
(I thought it was Universal for a long while, before spending too much
time in the URI Zen Zone.)
joshuaa@microsoft.com (Joshua Allen) writes:
>> Those who said that Tim's work was "trivial", or "not-new" or
>> "didn't solve interesting problems" were right. But those who said it
>
>Did "memex" have the concept of universal identifiers? I know that
>some of the other hypermedia systems at the time permitted linking to
>a common global id, but it was cumbersome and not the "normal" way of
>doing links. The WWW is still lagging functionality of many of those
>hypermedia systems, but the fact that using "universal" identifiers
>was the "standard" way of identifying targets was at least as
>important as having a killer app IMO. I think that the URI, not the
>hyperlink, is the fundamental innovation of the WWW -- and in fact the
>true potential of the web lies with use of URIs beyond hypermedia.
>
>(And by "universal", I mean you have a string identifier that is going
>to give the exact same result no matter whether called by a user on a
>workstation in Singapore or a user at CERN.)
|
