W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Mailto misnamed not misdesigned (Was: Hyperlinks depend on GET (was: Re: REST and the Web))

From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 01:03:46 -0500
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@apache.org>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020407010346.Y20189@bailey.dscga.com>
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 08:39:31PM -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
> There were discussions about 'mailto' on the URI
> list from 1995 through 1998; note, for example, the
> single mailbox & 'resource' theory in 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1997Jan/0003.html 
> as opposed to the text in the final RFC.
> 
> RFC 2368 was written to correspond to the practice
> of "mailto", rather than the theory of URIs which
> has them always identifying resources. A mailto with
> multiple targets and a "subject" line isn't a very
> good resource identifier, but it works in hrefs.
> An unadorned "mailto" with a single mailbox identifier
> can also work as a resource identifier.
> 
> So practice doesn't match theory, and trying to
> fit it is pretty unsatisfactory:
> I don't think it's worth it to try to shoehorn
> "mailto:bob@example.org,mary@example.com" into the
> theory that URIs _always_ identify resources. That one
> doesn't, and making up a story about it doesn't help
> out much.

But I think the point of the original post was to point out that
something similar has started through the standardization process
which can be fixed to reflect a more rigorous approach to what
it actually identifies. Do we want to repeat what we did with
'mailto' or can we fix it when it comes up in other schemes....

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
michael@neonym.net      |                              | http://www.neonym.net
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 01:07:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:30 GMT