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....


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:04 UTC