xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: How to use XML to link to XML when the XML becomes HTML?
Date Sat, 01 Apr 2000 10:54:29 GMT
Dan Morrison wrote:
> 
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > > IMO, the suffix of a file in a URI is a first-class citizen, deserving
> > > attention equal to the protocol.
> >
> > Why?
> 
> Granted that suffix-mime mapping has some things against it, it is one
> way of telling the type of the resource being linked to. This allows the
> client to know what it is that it's requesting - surely thats important?

??? why?

> I see .../contents.gif, .../contents.html, .../contents.xml,
> .../contents.php at there is information that is very imformative to me.

To you "site creator" or to you "site user".

Maybe for HTML pages it's not obvious but if you do

 <img src="/images/logos/main">

then you are able to reuse that URL for "all" instances and all your
user devices. Think about WAP phones, low graphic users, SVG capable
clients, TV-sets, etc...

If you say

 <img src="/images/logos/main.jpg">

the whole points is gone... and if you do content-negotiation on top of
-that- URI (which you perfectly could), it's getting even more confusing
since you are requesting a JPG image and the server returns an SVG image
depending on your browser capabilities.

> Mime-headers & stuff only happen post request.

Yes, that's the beauty of it.
 
> > In the awesome article "good URIs don't change" by web creator and W3C
> > director Tim Berners Lee, it is clearly shown why URI represent "uniform
> > resource identifiers"... this means:
> >
> >  uniform: they should identify _any_ available network resource
> >  resource: something that you are able to access from your network
> >  identifier: a unique address for that resource
> 
> OK, but we've seen information get a little more abstract & relative
> than that model,  which is I guess where Xpointer comes in. Doesn't
> quite meet my current needs.

I don't like XPointer and I think we don't need it.
 
> > If you type
> >
> >  http://www.apache.org/index.html
> >
> > you do two mistakes, even if the outcome is the same:
> 
> Yet another reason for me to detest FrontPage [Spawn of the Devil TM]

No, it's a reason to detest closemindness.
 
> ... Now, what happens if you change technology and
> > go to, say,
> >
> >  http://www.apache.org/index.xml
> >
> > all of the sudden, all the links are broken.
> 
> All of which makes creating a directory for each file and linking to the
> directory seem more inviting.

You think? Ok, do it for a site with two hundred million accessible URIs
and come back to me.
 
> ....
> > This is a simple and stupid example, but think about URIs like these
> >
> >  http://www.amazon.com/books/489347898387794?a=4898&b=4880
> >
> > compared to
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/books/it/Dante_Alighieri/La_Divina_Commedia/paperback/comments
> >
> > which one is better?
> >
> > Tell me, which one is more likely to remain the same after a hundred
> > years?
> 
> I notice that 'comments' at the end of the path doesn't have any suffix.

Yes, that's the point.
 
> I want (will I think I do) those files listed earlier to be .../contents
> and my parser will request centents.xml or content.html as appropriate
> in context.
> 
> Sound ridiculous?

No, this is what I'm saying all along :)

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------



Mime
View raw message