Information for "What's in a name - Part 4 Comment 2"
|Display title||What's in a name - Part 4 Comment 2|
|Default sort key||What's in a name - Part 4 Comment 2|
|Page length (in bytes)||1,299|
|Page content language||en - English|
|Page content model||wikitext|
|Indexing by robots||Allowed|
|Number of redirects to this page||0|
|Counted as a content page||Yes|
|Edit||Allow all users (infinite)|
|Move||Allow all users (infinite)|
|Date of page creation||19:45, 27 December 2007|
|Date of latest edit||19:45, 27 December 2007|
|Total number of edits||2|
|Total number of distinct authors||1|
|Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)||0|
|Recent number of distinct authors||0|
|Transcluded template (1)|
Template used on this page:
Thank you a lot for making th … Hi Richard,
Thank you a lot for making the first comment to Semantic Nodix! :)
About your thoughtful points:
I don't like to use content negotiation in order to get the right resource (or rather, representation of a resource, which itself is a resource again). I prefer getting explicitly the resource I asked for, and I feel like that's why URLs are there for: to locate one specific resource. That's why I try to avoid that way.
Anonymous nodes. My only reason against them is that they are not referenceable. You say, most of the time that's ok - I'd claim, well, most of the time you can't know if maybe someone will want to reference it in the future. Why making it impossible? Actually making URIs is very cheap (well, making good URIs isn't, but that's the point of this blogging series), so why not give a reference to every node? The web grew the way it did because we did not claim beforehand to know which resources need to be adressible and which not. It would be a totally different web today if the majority of resource out there were not adressable.
Your last point was answered in the blog and comments of the previous part.
Thanks on your comments, dennyious part.
Thanks on your comments,denny +