>> Where do you get the idea that not all URIs need be or should be cool? (If I am understanding you correctly...)
> Umm, maybe the several hundred conversations I've had on
> the topic with TimBL in the room. Cool URIs are permanent,
> so if you want to be cool then make permanence a design
> criteria. That's all there is to it.
> Nobody is going to
> argue against too much URI permanence. There is certainly
> nothing about that in conflict with REST, so if you perceive
> a conflict then I suggest you look at your reasoning and
> kill the paper tiger.
I'm glad to hear you confirm that there is no real conflict between URI permanence and REST. I'm also glad to hear you confirm that there is no real conflict between designs that depend on URI permanence and REST, eg out-of-band URI templates. (Which is how I read your other reply.)
While others may use the word "conflict", for the record, I don't believe I used the word "conflict" in this thread -- I used the word "tension". And I quoted an email of yours from back in February that seemed to indicate that you did not completely disagree with the "tension" characterization:
If there is a tension between the desire to bookmark and the fact that REST encourages folks to break up an application into a state machine of reusable resource states, then I would consider it to be more like sexual tension. Just because you have it doesn't mean it is bad, and one way to improve things is to make the more important resource links look sexier than the less important ones.