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

Comment on cturi spec (RE: Excess URI schemes considered harmful)

From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>
cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, <harald@alvestrand.no>, Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>, Rich Petke <rpetke@wcom.net>, <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0109260027370.11712-100000@mmmm.robla.org>
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> Thanks for the endorsement.  I've been a bit remise in working on my
> draft recently.  I plan to make one more very minor pass over it, post
> an updated version, and then request IESG action as a Proposed
> Standard. But I'm certainly open to receiving comments now and, if the
> IESG chooses to proceed, there will be an opportunity for the
> community to comment during the Last Call.

Great, glad to hear it's moving forward.

My only nit with the current draft is with the remapping of ";" in
the media type string to "&" in the URI.  Seeing as how the W3C is trying
to eradicate the use of "&" in URIs, it would make sense to leave ";" as
";".

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Lanphier [mailto:robla@real.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 2:36 PM
> To: Al Gilman; Tim Berners-Lee; Larry Masinter; harald@alvestrand.no;
> Dan Zigmond; Rich Petke; Donald.Eastlake
> Cc: uri@w3.org; Dan Connolly
> Subject: RE: Excess URI schemes considered harmful
>
>
> At 01:56 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
> >At 11:34 AM 2001-09-25 , Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > >Please describe the *exact* encoding for the media type "text/plain" under
> > >this scheme.
> > >
> >
> >[Contingent on IANA endorsement what Mark Baker gave us] to refer to _exactly_
> >what IANA had to say _today_ about the text/plain media type, I believe a
> >valid
> >reference could be spelled
> >
> ><urn:tdb:20010925:http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/plain>
> >
> >For a reference which recovers what IANA had to say about that type
> >designation as of when you use the reference, you could of course use simply:
> >
> >http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/plain
> >
> >... and this might return no recovered value for the resource some day.
>
> The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
>
> At the end of the day, it would be great if this community could agree on
> *one* mapping between the two formats.  I'd get laughed out of the room if
> I suggested as a work item for our developer team to map the n-to-n
> possible ways a media type can be expressed as a URI as something we should
> implement in any of our products.
>
> This infinitely flexible system may be just peachy in a dream world where
> implementers have infinite time to tinker around with all of the
> equivalencies, but at the end of the day, I'm really tired of people
> theorizing that a well-thought out media type <-> URI spec isn't necessary.
>
> For those of you joining late (there were a couple of outdated email
> addresses in the "To:" line) the archive of this discussion is here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2001Sep/thread.html#18
>
> ...and I'm arguing in favor of the Eastlake proposal for doing URI<->Media
> Type mappings:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-cturi-02.txt
>
> Rob
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 03:34:13 GMT

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