> Maybe, maybe not. But either way, there's nothing particularly special
> about http: URIs in this respect ... an ftp: or mailto: or whatever
> URI would do just as well (or badly, depending on your POV).
Sure.
The important point here is that the HTTP protocol has features that
explicitly support the resource/representation distinction, whereas FTP
doesn't (and mailto: doesn't even have a standard resolution mechanism).
For example, I could assert that this URI identified those bricks
(don't try to resolve it);
ftp://www.markbaker.ca/foo/bar/bricks.jpg
But since FTP only knows how to identify files, it won't allow me to add
an alternate representation, say an HTML file, like HTTP does with
content negotiation.
MB
--
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
