W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Mailto misnamed not misdesigned (Was: Hyperlinks depend on GET (was: Re: REST and the Web))

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:22:09 -0700
To: "'Aaron Swartz'" <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201c1de58$bffad660$6ace8642@larrypad>
On the original topic ("hyperlinks depend on GET") and
"mailto" consider

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1997Jan/0004.html

and the following messages in the thread, which was touched
off when the mailto extensions were first being discussed.

Is there something new, or is the problem still as hard
as it was 5 years ago?

I think the theory that "URIs identify resources" is a
useful theory and works for many URIs, and it becomes
awkward when faced with URIs such as 'mailto' with multiple
targets and extra header lines. Some URIs work very nicely
as resource identifiers, and others don't. I'm not sure
what's wrong with just accepting that.

Larry
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 13:23:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT