On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 16 November, 2001 03:26 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: What is at the end of the namespace? > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Yes, URIs *may* denote abstract resources. No, HTTP URLs > > may *not*. > > > > > > Patrick, as an author of both of those specifications, I can > > > definitively state that what you are saying does not match > > what I intended > > > when I wrote the sections to which you have referred. > > > > I must admit that I always thought that HTTP URIs were some retrivable > > resouce, but after looking at the introduction to RFC 2068: > > > > Practical information systems require more functionality > > than simple > > retrieval, including search, front-end update, and annotation. HTTP > > allows an open-ended set of methods that indicate the purpose of a > > request. > > > > It seems that Sean is right. HTTP URIs seem like they could mean > > anything. > > I don't read it that way at all! I think you are reading your > own interpretation into the language, not judging what it > actually says. > > A 'request' means that something should be provided as a response > to that 'request'. You can't 'request' an abstract entity. You > can only reference it.
You can request a representation of an abstract entity. Dan
