Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
>
> I hope you see the point here though.... there is *no* reliable way to
> send a URI to a specific resource representation as the web would
> exist in a world of purely abstract URI's. To my mind, that is BAD
> (Broken As Designed). Abstract URI's are a powerful thing, but they
> shouldn't/cannot be the *only* thing.... (maybe that's why we used to
> have URL, URI, URN?)
>
I am failing to see the issue. The "data:" URI scheme is intended to
represent some literal string of characters e.g.
"data:text/xml;<this>is an exampke</this>"
but moreover, we have URIs _and_ MIME messages. Do we need more?
Jonathan
