Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu

On May 8, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2012/05/09 3:36, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On May 8, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>> Well, perhaps a less theoretical distinction would be whether or not
>>> what a URI is associated can have a media type.  A media type for
>>> mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com is
>>> not really sensible; a fragment for that identifier is thus not sensible.
>> 
>> No, fragments have nothing to do with the definition of schemes.
>> They occasionally have something to do with how schemes are used,
>> such as
>> 
>>    mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com#subject
>> 
>> could be used, for example, to refer to either the owner of that mailbox
>> or to opening an email entry form with "ted.ietf@gmail.com" pre-filled
>> in the To field and the active cursor placed in an input field named
>> subject.  We don't know its true definition, if any, until someone
>> builds a system that happens to use the identifier in that fashion.
> 
> This is what both http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6068 ("The 'mailto' URI Scheme") and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-eai-mailto-03 (an update to include EAI) currently say on this topic:
> 
>   Note that this specification, like any URI scheme specification, does
>   not define syntax or meaning of a fragment identifier (see [STD66]),
>   because these depend on the type of a retrieved representation.  In
>   the currently known usage scenarios, a 'mailto' URI cannot be used to
>   retrieve such representations.  Therefore, fragment identifiers are
>   meaningless, SHOULD NOT be used on 'mailto' URIs, and SHOULD be
>   ignored upon resolution.  The character "#" in <hfvalue>s MUST be
>   escaped as %23.
> 
> This seems to be fully in line with the discussion up to here, including Roy's comment above, but if anybody thinks it needs to be changed, please send some new proposed wording.

The second to last sentence is wrong.  That spec cannot make
normative requirements about something that is out of scope;
any fragment is completely outside the scope of a URI scheme
specification.  Just remove the "Therefore, ... resolution."
sentence -- it serves no useful purpose.

....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 04:29:15 UTC