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

RE: RFC2396bis wording, opinions?

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 10:21:25 -0700
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Message-id: <0HYH00BUKK7PXZ@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

Roy's latest:

>        This document doesn't limit the scope of what might be a resource;
>        rather, the term "resource" is used in a general sense for whatever
>        might be assigned a URI for the sake of later identification.

I'm unhappy with 'assigned', because the notion of 'assignment'
of a URI as if it were an act, performed by some authority.

Perhaps some URIs are assigned, (URNs) but for many schemes, there is no
process of 'assignment'. No one 'assigns' the meaning of a
'data' URI, or an HTTP URI with a query parameter. I think
rather than URIs are _used_, and that they _have_ meaning which
comes solely from the meaning assigned by interpretation by rules of
the URI scheme, and not from some other out-of-band communication
or knowledge. Bringing in 'assignment' makes it seem like it's
possible to assign some meaning that is different than the one
that is naturally derived from the interpretation by the scheme,
without any communication channel for sending that meaning.

So I don't like this as much.

Received on Saturday, 29 May 2004 13:22:58 UTC

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