W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: The Intuitive/ Requirement

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:14:38 -0500
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Message-ID: <CD528E91.D917%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello all.

On 2013-02-26 10:37 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>It seems accepted by the group as a requirement on the LDP specification,
>though it would be good to make it explicit, that LDP must allow
>implementations to follow what I would like to call the intuitive
>requirement, nameley that:

they should be able to follow whatever naming scheme the implementers
happen to prefer. we shouldn't make any statements about naming
conventions in the spec. we can, however, include recommendations and/or
best practices in accompanying documents.

>URIs MUST be opaque
>-------------------
>It is usually argued that this is bad because URIs must be opaque.
>But clearly that cannot be the case or else the above turtle would be
>illegal and the URI specification would be mistaken  since it goes into
>great detail on this subject, as for example in
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2.4

this specific part of the spec is very detailed because it says how to
resolve relative URIs against base URIs. this indeed is important, and
you're correct that at this level, URIs do have structure: they have path
components and these have semantics in terms of resolving relative URIs.
but that's it, and it's different from prescribing URI patterns for
specific resources in specific media types.

but like i said above, the point you're making is a useful one and would
be a good addition to best practices, so that implementations that want to
use hierarchical URIs (they don't have to if they don't feel like it) have
a good starting point.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 15:15:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC