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

Re: info scheme has no authority component, why?

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:24:03 -0500
Message-ID: <2f3601c4083d$ad888890$849c938c@lib.loc.gov>
To: <uri@w3c.org>

Sorry if I'm jumping in on this thread out-of-context  (I can't find
the beginning of it) but I'd like to address the subject line....
Please look at:
and consider these two entries:  'lccn', and 'srw'.  Lccn has no
authority component because the info:lccn just takes an existing lccn,
normalizes it, and sticks it in a uri. No authority, because nobody is
coining the URI. In contrast, for srw, someone is coining the uri, and
there is an authority component built into the syntax (as for several
other entries ....  doi and netref for example).


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
To: <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: info scheme has no authority component, why?

> > Indeed, the reg-name token in 2396bis seems to be targeting a
> > usage.  Whereas the RFC-2396 reg_name was a kind of non-host
> > that could not have a port number, the 2396bis reg-name is a kind
> > host and can have a port number.  Maybe the 2396bis vision is not
> > provide for abstract registered naming authorities as described in
> > RFC-2396 and info-uri-01, but merely to allow network entities
> > services, domains) to be named using more naming systems than just
> > RFC-1123 hostnames.  Is that the intention?
> No.  What the syntax allows and what a specific scheme uses are two
> different things.  There is nothing wrong with a scheme that only
> uses a subset of the available syntax, provided it avoids the
> reserved characters that would indicate otherwise.  Moving reg-name
> under host has the appropriate impact of reserving the ":" and "@"
> characters for a specific purpose, but no effect on any URI that
> might have been defined to use the old reg_name (which also reserved
> those characters).  The result is simply less ambiguous to parse.
> > On the other hand, if the intention of 2396bis is that reg-name
> > really be an abstract naming authority, shouldn't info: be using
> The "info" scheme proposal misuses almost every single aspect of URI
> syntax, philosophy, technology, and accepted best practice.  There
> no need for it to exist at all.  Yes, it would be better to use
> the generic authority syntax or the URN authority syntax for new URI
> schemes that make use of delegated naming authorities.
> ....Roy
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 09:24:07 UTC

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