W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > November 2001

Re: URI resolution & safety

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:31:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200111250731.CAA26315@markbaker.ca>
To: dcrocker@brandenburg.com (Dave Crocker)
Cc: dee3@torque.pothole.com (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd), discuss@apps.ietf.org
> > > You are confusing implementation with protocol.
> >
> >The mailto URI scheme is not associated with any protocol.  See
> >section 3 of RFC 2368.
> URIs are protocols.  They have format and they are exchanged.  If you don't 
> like the word protocol, then use "interchange specification".  Whatever you 
> call the latter, you are confusing it with the former.

You've lost me.

Resolving "mailto:foo@bar.org" is safe per RFC 2368.  What more do you
need to know?

The resolution of some URI aren't safe.  I saw an "aim:" URI scheme
recently that allowed resolution of a URI to send an AIM message.  That
is a Bad Thing.

> > > The idea that publicly transmitted information can be treated as "safe" --
> > > without assorted, special certification is just plain wrong.
> >
> >What's wrong with wanting identifiers to identify, and nothing more?
> other than the fact that the question is not meaningful here, nothing.

Eh?  Identifers are publicly transmitted information, and their
resolution should be safe, otherwise their value as identifers is moot.
Nobody would dare resolve anything if they couldn't be assured of this.

Or to use your words, I'd suggest that all URI have this "special

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2001 02:33:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:01 UTC