W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > July to September 2004

URIs and resources (Was: AWWW, 20040816 release, sections 1 and 2)

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:06:58 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040929090221.032cc2c8@127.0.0.1>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org

At 15:55 28/09/04 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
>| Section 2.5, Good Practice point:
>|
>| I found the point, as stated, seemed rather vague (specifically:
>| "except as specified by relevant specifications").
>|
>| My suggestion would be turn this around to state something like this:
>| [[
>| The form of URI may indicate how to access a resource, but not about
>| the nature of the resource, except insofar as it is constrained by the
>| access method.
>| ]]
>
>I think the problem is that I could invent and register a scheme that
>did allow additional assertions. The data: scheme, for example, allows
>me to assert that the resource is the URI.

Oops, I think I just made a similar point with respect to the revised URI 
spec!  (i.e. I take your point.)

I still think "except as specified by relevant specifications" is unhelpful 
here;  The vague reference to "relevant specifications" doesn't tell the 
reader where else to look.  I'll take another stab at a revision for your 
consideration:

[[
The form of URI may indicate how to access a resource, but not about
the nature of the resource, except insofar as it may be constrained
by the specification of the particular URI scheme used.
]]

(I think that covers access method dependents.)

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 09:15:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:33 GMT