Re: 4.2 Location-source/Base address

At 5:56 PM -0700 3/5/97, Dave Hollander wrote:
>> At 12:33 PM 3/4/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>> >4.2.a Should we formalize at all the concept of a base address?
>> Yes, it's generally useful for a variety of reasons, e.g. replication
>> support, it's a real pity that HTML BASE is in general not better
>> defined and understood.
>True. It is a useful concept to formally define.
>However, if we do, we need to establish what is the resolution
>between discrepency between implied-resource-name (resource name used
>to reach this resource) and the "base" value.

If you specify a "Base" (locsc) you deep-six any other logic for
determining the base. No problem.

>While we are at it, should we also build in the ability to have the
>document its prefered resource name? The one of many paths to that
>resource that is prefered to be remembered?
No. If people give something more than one name, they are responsible for
making them all work. Otherwise we intorduce pointless complexity.

>>4.2.c Should we formalize the concept of the implied location source?
>Is this the same as: resource name used to reach this resource ?
>If so, we do need the concept to express priority policy re expressed
>location source.

I don't see that we need anything other than relative URL rules for this --
either relative to the retrieval-source of the document, or whatever BASE
was specified.

This keeps it simple, and re-uses Web semantics where they make a lot of sense.

  -- David

David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________