Phillip Lord wrote:
I don't understand the desire to implement everything using HTTP.
Likewise, I don't understand the desire to implement everything using
anything but HTTP :-) If there is an existing system that is (incredibly)
widely adopted and that can be built upon, surely that's the way to go?
Why call
lots of things, which are actually several protocols by a name which suggests
that they are all one. How to distinguish between an HTTP URI which allows you
to do location independent, two step resolution and one which doesn't. Well,
one solution would be, perhaps, to call it something different, say, perhaps,
LSID?
You could have the concept of LS HTTP URIs that follow certain conventions,
may be useful for some, but I don't quite see the problem with the fact
that you will be able to resolve some HTTP URIs, but not others: The only
way to know whether a URI can be resolved or not, in the end, is to try;
some systems just seem to make doing so harder...
