W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: URIs / URLs

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:37:52 -0500
Message-ID: <3AD4F8E0.ABBFB1C@w3.org>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, uri@w3.org
Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com> wrote:
> 
> >>  (b) support for [URNs] is available in popular browsers and has
> >>  been for several generations
> >
> > Just curious - how do browsers support URNs?

Thru various hooks, esp HTTP proxying...

     It is likewise
     recommended that, where a protocol allows for retrieval by URL,
that the
     client software have provision for being configured to use specific
     gateway locators for indirect access through new naming schemes. 
     -- RFC 1630 URIs in WWW June 1994 
	from http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes#hack-schemes

Unfortunately, in NS4.x, this only works for urn: , not
for all absolute URIs that follow the right syntax.
For details, see
  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2001/telagent/#ns-parse-bug

I reported the goofy parsing of URI schemes such as irc: and tel:
as a bug (#2110) and it's fixed in mozilla. I hear there's
something related called protozilla, but I don't know the details.

Internet explorer also has support for URI scheme extensiblity.
see #hack-schemes above for details.

Konqueror had some minor bugs; I reported those, and I think
they're being fixed.

In general, the clients are getting better.

> oded or does it look it up somehow?).

It's just a local proxy mechanism. There are designs for
new ubiquitous services for URN resolution, but (a) they're
not widely deployed, and (b) the well-designed ones
work for all URIs... just as well to make http: URIs
more robust as to make urn:'s work.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 21:43:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT