W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Resolving IRIs for resource documents in SVG Tiny 1.2

From: Helder Magalh„es <helder.magalhaes@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 01:16:42 +0100
Message-ID: <2a1ddf8a0805151716x283fbcb4h73e29303c3b377f4@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>

> This seems to imply that if I have a document that contains many resource
> references with the same relative URI, I have to perform an HTTP transaction
> for each one to see if any of them result in a redirect. Wouldn't it make a
> lot more sense to use the pre-redirect URI as the dictionary key, so I can
> avoid a lot of network transactions?

Although at a first glance I was tempted to agree with you, after a
more through analysis I believe the behavior proposed by the
specification is probably the more appropriate. In a stateless,
non-persistent process, your approach seems to make more sense but, if
one uses an gateway-like URI which is redirected to a final location
depending on state, than this can become problematic. Note that this
is labeled "counterexample", not to be taken as an good/advised URI
usage pattern (at all)! :-)

Maybe the specification could advert that, depending on URI
organization and redirect usage, the proposed behavior could lead to
(potentially) useless network transactions. Nevertheless it seems to
be a somehow general URI organization matter - (un)RESTfull [1] and
related concepts. Linking to an external document on the subject could
help bringing focus to the matter without inserting much noise on the
specification.

Thoughts?

 Helder Magalh„es

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_State_Transfer
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 00:17:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:39 GMT