W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: URI scheme uniqueness

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:24:35 +0200
To: <hardie@qualcomm.com>, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOECPIBAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of hardie@qualcomm.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:41 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: URI scheme uniqueness
>
> ...
>
> Reading the quoted text "resources are free to return any URI  scheme so
long
> as it meets the uniqueness requirements", I would have presumed
"registered
> URI scheme" was implied.  You could, however, rewrite it to "resources are

Thanks, Ted. This is where I came from: most people to which I talked about
this assumed that as well. However, during testing I found servers that
simply use ad-hoc schemes. I think this is a very bad practice, and thus
RFC2518bis should be *clarified*.> free to return any opaque lock token so
long as it meets the uniqueness

> requirements and conforms to URI syntax" (or something similar) and get
> much the same effect without that same presumption.

So *how* do you produce a guaranteed-to-be-unique URI without using a
registered scheme? I think this is simply impossible.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 03:24:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT