- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:39:26 -0400
- To: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
- cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
In message <2.2.32.19961031185900.00370890@pop-server.wrc.xerox.com>, Judith Sl
ein writes:
>
>On the subject of containment, section 7 of the spec proposes to use
>SiteMaps as the new content type to represent containers. I'd like to
>change the name of the mime type to application/container to emphasize the
>fact that it can represent something other than a URL hierarchy. For the
>case where it's a document management system that stands behind the Web
>server, it may be desirable for the location parameter of a node in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>SiteMap to be expressible as something other than a URL.
Could you elaborate on that claim? URLs are not just filenames. They're
names for whatever you want to name.
Could you give an example of "the location parameter of a node" that's
not expressible as a URL.
Keep in mind that if you have any string S representation of "the
location parameter of a node", we can encode that string using %xx
syntax into S', make up a new URL scheme sch (if necessary), and write
the URL:
sch:S'
If using URLs is (1) sufficient to express location parameters and (2)
necessary to exploit the infrastructure that understands them, then
I suggest that allowing anything besides URLs unnecessarily complicates
the design.
Dan
Received on Thursday, 31 October 1996 14:36:31 UTC