W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2008

Re: opaque uris and self-describing resources

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:37:25 -0800
Message-ID: <479564F5.30004@berkeley.edu>
To: "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
CC: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

hello cilve.

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Sandro Hawke said:
>>> so i assume to discover the non-http nature of the resource 
>>> identified by u1, there must be some content within the returned 
>>> resource that makes that statement. logically, i see three ways how the 
>>> non-httpness of the identified resource could be established:
>>> 1. string matching with a magic prefix
>>> 2. the 303 returned when dereferencing the uri
>>> 3. embedded metadata in the returned resource
>> The TAG reached consensus on 15 Jun 2005 to use option 2.
> How does this work when I'm not online? How does my software discover that
> there's something special about this URL?

that's easy to answer: it doesn't work. it would only work if you used 
the "magic http prefix" approach in which you take certain http-uri 
prefixes and essentially treat them as semantically significant. whether 
that's something that would be a good idea is another question, and the 
w3c says you should first do the 303 dance.

what's more worrying: even if you do dereference the uri and get a 303, 
you still only know that the uri *could* reference a non-http resource. 
finding out whether it actually does (which probably would be the case 
for a web server based on the w3c tag consensus) or not (some other web 
server sending a 303 for whatever reason) needs something more, and i am 
currently unsure whether option (1) or (3) of the above is preferred.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 03:37:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:40 GMT