[FoRK] HTTP 0.2, 9p, and op
sean at conman.org
Thu Dec 24 14:47:10 PST 2009
It was thus said that the Great Jeff Bone once stated:
> This all leads me to recapitulate my longstanding but much-contested
> points-of-view: DAV is horrible and should be avoided at all costs,
> and the Web is a filesystem. The sooner both the filesystem and Web
> communities actually acknowledge those facts and start hashing out the
> consequences productively rather than unnecessarily amplifying the
> differences, the better.
The web is a filesystem? News to me (and here I was taught that
filesytems were a type of database with only one indexed column).
Anyway, the HTTP spec goes out of its way to avoid using the term "file",
instead calling the endpoint of a URL (or is it URI?) is a "resource".
That's because what's at the end of a URL (or is it URI?) "could" be a file,
but it could also be something else entirely.
Take, for instance, my Electric King James Bible . The only "file"
(in the traditional sense) is the index page---the rest, all 15 gazillion
"pages", don't exist as individual files. Sure, there's Genesis:
but there's also the Noah and the Flood:
and just his sons:
There's some intelligence (read: program) that takes the URL (or is it
URI?) and maps it to the data that needs to be returned for display on the
"page" (or "file" I suppose).
Yes, there's an underlying "file" (files, actually) that is (are) read to
build the "page" but it seems wierd to me calling the result a "file". When
it really isn't.
-spc (My blog  uses a similar technique for displaying entries )
 I picked the Bible for its structure (me? I'm not particularly
religeous), where you can reference whole books (Genesis), chapters
(Genesis 1) or even individual verses (Genesis 1:1).
The first link displays the entries chronologically, the sencond
displays the entries in reverse chronological order.
More information about the FoRK