W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2001

Re: comments on draft-eastlake-cturi-01.txt

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:41:52 -0600
To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, <uri@w3.org>, <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Michael Mealling <michaelm@netsol.com>, Ted Hardie <hardie@equinix.com>
Message-ID: <B68FC4AF.20A2C%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com> wrote:

>> What's wrong with the current system of URI mapping:
>>  http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/
> IANA is more or less in the process of moving from isi.edu to
> iana.org, an illustration of the instability of domain names.

So then use iana.org -- we expect that this will be around for a while, no?

>> http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/
> There is no guarantee of this structure remaining the same and I don't
> see why one would think you could design a structure that would
> encompass all current and future IANA supervised protocol parameter
> values. 

You wouldn't have to -- you could create them (as subdirectories) as they
were needed. (I think I'm missing something here... what do you mean?)

> Using a domain name in a fundamental protocol parameter
> encoding is basicly a bad idea except in some cases where the domain
> name is in a part of the DNS name space specifically set aside for
> that purpose. 

Why? It's just a string. You suggest one string, I suggest another. It just
so happens that my string has greater utility and meaning to many people at
this point in time. If that meaning and utility go away at some point in the
future, then both of our strings will be equally useful once again.

In other words, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

>> Also, what's the point of making URIs into content types? Where would this
>> be used?
> To express the types of objects that have only a URI type label
> originally defined in MIME contexts such as SMTP where only
> Content-Type is permitted.

Ahh, I see. You should really talk to the Content-Type: whatever+xml folks
about this -- people keep asking them to use namespaces as content-types.
Perhaps your system could solve this problem.

[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Saturday, 20 January 2001 23:42:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC