 |
 |
Erik Hetzner wrote: > > I don’t actually think that there is anybody who is arguing that all > identifiers must be resolvable. There are people who argue that there > are identifiers which must NOT be resolvable; at least in their basic > form. (see Stuart Weibel [1]). > There are indeed people arguing that, Erik, on this very list. Like, in the email I responded to (did you read that one?). That's why I wrote what I did, man! You know I'm the one who cited Stu's argument first on this list! I am aware of his arguments. I am aware of people arguing various things on this issue. But when did someone suggest that all identifiers must be resolvable? When Andrew argued that: > Having unresolvable URIs is anti-Web since the Web is a hypertext > system where links are required to make it useful. Exposing > unresolvable links in content on the Web doesn't make the Web > more useful. Okay, I guess he didn't actually SAY that you should never have non-resolvable identifiers, but he rather strongly implied it, by using the "anti-Web" epithet. But now we're arguing about what we're arguing about, which is the sure sign that an internet argument should die. Suffice it to say that there are at LEAST three viewpoints (if not more) being expressed in this argument, it's not just two sides. And that, I agree with Ray, these are NOT entirely solved questions, the "right" answer is not always obvious, reasonable people can disagree. (I happen to think there are a handful of clear WRONG answers, but also a variety of competing potentially right ones.) Jonathan