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

Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:39:02 -0800 (PST)
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, <harald.alvestrand@maxware.no>, Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>, Rich Petke <rpetke@wcom.net>, <uri@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.40.0110302325340.14020-100000@mmmm.robla.org>
Tim,

Wow, this thread certainly came back to life!  :)  To paraphrase your mail
below, you prefer "http://contenttype.org/..." to "ContentType:....", but
that's not a showstopper.  Great, I think we agree on the most imporant
bit.

I guess I had read too much into your original "excess URI schemes"
message, and worried that the "ContentType:..." solution was considered
excess in your book.  It sounds like I had nothing to worry about.

Thanks for the clarification.

Rob

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Lanphier" <robla@real.com>
> To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>; "Larry Masinter"
> <masinter@parc.xerox.com>; <harald.alvestrand@maxware.no>; "Dan Zigmond"
> <djz@corp.webtv.net>; "Rich Petke" <rpetke@wcom.net>
> Cc: <uri@w3.org>; "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:12 AM
> Subject: RE: Excess URI schemes considered harmful
>
>
> > At 02:15 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> > >Content-Types should be defined by URIs, as are XML Namespaces. These
> then
> > >leverage the existing URI schemes to anchor thier meanings in the web.
> > >This allows anyone to make a local private Content-Type or namespace for
> > >their own use. This does NOT apply to URI schemes.  The process has to be
> > >rooted somewhere, and that root is the URI spec and the *small* set
> > >of  URI schemes.
> >
> > I'm confused by this statement.
>
> My statement says that too many URI schemes is a bad thing,.
>
> Trying again the explanation, it is because you have to program in a new URI
> scheme,
> you can't look it up.
>
> > In your estimation, is the Eastlake
> > proposal to solve this problem a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or just a
> > Thing.  For your reference:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-cturi-02.txt
> >
>
> That document is not a proposal to solve the problem I stated.
> But its  a Good Thing.
>
> It aims to solve another one, that Content-Types are not URIs.
> I think it does a reasonable job, except of course that I don't like the
> fact that it introduces a new scheme.   It doesn't have to - it
> would work just fine with the an http:/something/ prefix.
> I would prefer that there be some
> commitment to a part of http: space so that IANA can provide
> some definitive information about them.
>
> http://content-type.org/application/xml
>
> would be more useful to me, so long as we had a commitment
> written in stone that content-type.org would exist forever wihtout
> anyone paying fees etc.
>
> But I would be happy with the <content-type: ... > URI scheme.
>
> > I'm assuming you see this as a Bad Thing, at which point, I anxiously
> await
> > an alternate proposal.
>
> Well, I'm not sure which you think I think is Bad Thing.
>
> > Thanks
> > Rob
> >
> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 02:40:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:29 GMT