W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2004

info scheme has no authority component, why?

From: Adam M. Costello BOGUS address, see signature <BOGUS@BOGUS.nicemice.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:35:44 +0000
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040311223544.GB4688~@nicemice.net>

I just looked at draft-vandesompel-info-uri-01 for the first time, and
am puzzled by something.  The reg_name component introduced in RFC-2396
seems tailor-made for a URI scheme like info, and yet info chooses not
to use it.


    URI that are hierarchical in nature use the slash "/" character for
    separating hierarchical components.

    Many URI schemes include a top hierarchical element for a naming
    authority, such that the namespace defined by the remainder of the
    URI is governed by that authority.  This authority component is
    typically defined by an Internet-based server or a scheme-specific
    registry of naming authorities.


    An "info-identifier" is constructed by appending an "identifier"
    component to a "namespace" component separated by a slash "/"
    character.  The "info" URI scheme supports hierarchy as indicated by
    the presence of the slash "/" character.

    Values for the "namespace" component...identify the public namespace
    in which the (unescaped) value for the "identifier" component
    originates, and are registered in the "info" Registry, which
    guarantees their uniqueness.

The alignment looks perfect, but info: does not use "//" and does
not call its "namespace" an "authority".  Why?  If info: doesn't use
reg_name, what ever would?

If the approach being taken by info: is considered to be proper, then
the conception of reg_name from RFC-2396 is being abandoned.

Indeed, the reg-name token in 2396bis seems to be targeting a different
usage.  Whereas the RFC-2396 reg_name was a kind of non-host authority
that could not have a port number, the 2396bis reg-name is a kind of
host and can have a port number.  Maybe the 2396bis vision is not to
provide for abstract registered naming authorities as described in
RFC-2396 and info-uri-01, but merely to allow network entities (hosts,
services, domains) to be named using more naming systems than just
RFC-1123 hostnames.  Is that the intention?

On the other hand, if the intention of 2396bis is that reg-name can
really be an abstract naming authority, shouldn't info: be using it?
Could there be a better candidate?


P.S. This is one of several points of confusion that perhaps a successor
to RFC-2718 could address by offering more guidelines about appropriate
and inappropriate uses for each component of the generic URI syntax.
For example, it might discuss how to decide whether to use an authority,
and if not, whether to use a leading slash, and when to use a fragment
vs. query-string vs. path-segment vs path-segment-with-semicolons vs.
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:35:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC