W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2009

RE: Proposed AWWW erratum on "information resources" [was Re: Fwd: Splitting vs. Interpreting]

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:46:55 -0700
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118D824FFB8@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>

> Compare this with a corresponding http URI such as
> http://filbert.example/nadia/woosel/yes
> In this case, the chain of authority looks like:
>   1. AWWW delegates to RFC3986 (because the whole thing is a URI)
>   2. RFC3986 delegates authority for http:* URIs to the owner of the
> http scheme

OK so far

  3. Owner of http scheme delegates authority for
http://filbert.example/* URIs to the owner of filbert.example.

No. The "Owner" of the http scheme is the IETF. The http
URI scheme is defined in a Draft Standard for HTTP, following
IETF process. The current definition doesn't delegate the
"authority" for http://filbert.example/* URIs to the
"owner" of filbert.example, it only allows for the HTTP
protocol to be used to connect the HTTP server being run
at the computer with the DNS entry for filbert.example.

>   4. The owner of filbert.example delegates authority for
  http://filbert.example/* URIs to the Filbert specification.

I'm not sure who you think the "owner" of "filbert.example"
is. HTTP doesn't know anything about "owners". There are
protocols, domain names, operators, and an infrastructure
of DNS. The system doesn't allow delegation to a new 
"specification". What the operator of the service at
filbert.example has as operational policy is, and should
be, opaque to the agent interpreting 
"http://filbert.example/*"



> There is one extra level of indirection in the http case, but the net
> effect is nearly identical.

Only in some hypothetical world.


> For simplicity, but without loss of generality, I have made the syntax
> of these two URIs look very similar. 

You're building up an imaginary system which cannot be
put into practice. I could imagine a hypothetical world
in which you could make the associations you're providing,
but I don't think it's possible given the organizations
involved, nor do I think that the hypothetical world
you postulate is a better one than the one in which
http URIs are used for the HTTP protocol, and if you don't
want the HTTP protocol, you use a different URI scheme.

I could respond to the rest, but it's mainly repetitive.

Larry
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 19:47:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT