W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2003

Re: secure URIs

From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:34:53 +0100
To: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>
Cc: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030430073453.GC32058@finch-staff-1.thus.net>

Trevor Perrin said:
>> I agree meta: isn't very informative, so a better name would be good.
>> On the other hand, secure/crypto might be too narrow.  I'm thinking
>> about other possible "metadata" you might want to attach to an URL.

> I can't think of great uses for metadata like this beside crypto data, so I 
> wouldn't mind having a "secure" scheme just targeted to document hashes, 
> key/cert fingerprints, and key/cert-retrieval URLs, unless there's a 
> compelling reason to broaden it.

Bitter experience says that it's always better to make the scheme as wide
and extensible as possible. In particular, "why would you want that?" is
almost a guaranteed recipe for later regrets.

I also don't like "secure" because it isn't a secure link, it's a way of
(in this case) checking that the target of the link hasn't changed. To most
people, "secure" means untappable, as in the "s" of "https".

Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@davros.org>  | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 03:35:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:05 UTC