8 ms·
That’s good news for books ("urn:isbn:"), movies ("urn:isan:"), UUIDs ("urn:uuid:"), and so many other things that I thought weren’t on the web. If I reside in
by chrisoverzero 8y ago
That’s good news for books ("urn:isbn:"), movies ("urn:isan:"), UUIDs ("urn:uuid:"), and so many other things that I thought weren’t on the web.
If I reside in "urn:oid:2.16.840" and I read "https://news.ycombinator.com" https://news.ycombinator.com", is that what they call the inner-platform effect?
- JimDabell 8y agoI'm guessing the point you're driving at is "these things obviously aren't on the web, so this is wrong"? The web is an abstract information space that can contain arbitrary links between objects. The web isn't something you load in a browser, it's a way of organising links between things. So, yes, you can link to books, movies, etc. Anything with a URI. You might be interested in this early document about the World-Wide Web: https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html It describes what I'm saying in more detail, including explicitly mentioning books as something that can be addressed in URI space.
- chrisoverzero 8y agoIf the definition of the web is "anything addressable via URI," then the definition of the web is no longer useful. I can imagine a URN scheme for every atom in the universe. Welcome to the web -- you're soaking in it! More seriously, I think that -- if pressed -- I'd say that the identifiers are on the web, but the things are not. Other than that, I believe we would agree??? That said, the origin of this discussion is in relation to Google's launching of AMP for e-mail. The justification was that e-mails are on the web, so it's OK to use AMP to push them forward. A better viewpoint, though one I disagree with, relates AMP to being a better mode of HTML. (As opposed to one of the Web.)