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

Re: info scheme has no authority component, why?

From: Tony Hammond <tonyhammond@mac.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:52:04 +0000
Message-Id: <139489C6-798B-11D8-B3F0-000A95B1B184@mac.com>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, uri@w3.org
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

> The different authority syntax
> for urn prevented its deployment for many years, but I think that
> has finally been resolved. ...  New schemes should learn from that 
> lesson
> and try to be uniform whenever possible,

Query this statement about 'uniformity'.

Do we not need to distinguish between identifier authorities and 
namespace authorities? INFO like URN is only a namespace authority 
(i.e. we are seeking to deal with the issue of namespace delegation) 
and cannot (and will not and must not) vouch for identifiers minted 
under those namespaces. In essence, INFO is just a URN-lite introduced 
because of technical and social (read cultural) problems with 
registering new URN NIDs. (One could argue that INFO is redundant and 
everything can be done under URN. But actual practice is clearly and 
significantly otherwise and the Web continues to remain hostile to 
accepting new information spaces. The issue is real, persistent and 
will not go away.)

BTW - I fail to discover any injunction in the following extracts that 
a (namespace) authority must/should be disclosed within a URI string 
and that 'uniformity' requires any such disclosure. Maybe lack of any 
authority component should be a deprecated feature of URIs - if that 
would be the right thing to do. But is it now?

[rfc 2396] 3.2. Authority Component

    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.

[2396bis-04] 3.2 Authority

    Many URI schemes include a hierarchical element for a naming
    authority, such that governance of the name space defined by the
    remainder of the URI is delegated to that authority (which may, in
    turn, delegate it further).  The generic syntax provides a common
    means for distinguishing an authority based on a registered name or
    server address, along with optional port and user information.

Tony


On 16 Mar 2004, at 22:04, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>
>>> No, it has has an arbitrarily different syntax that serves the same
>>> purpose as the authority component in the generic syntax.  The urn
>>> scheme has one as well -- that has proven to be a bad idea.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this latter point?  My objection to info: has
>> been precisely that it should be split up into a number of urn: 
>> schemes.
>
> Yes, that was my objection as well.  The different authority syntax
> for urn prevented its deployment for many years, but I think that
> has finally been resolved.  URNs would have been deployed in 1994,
> at least in terms of WWW client and proxy behavior, were it not for a
> disagreement over the syntax.  New schemes should learn from that 
> lesson
> and try to be uniform whenever possible,
>
> ....Roy
>
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 04:58:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:32 GMT