W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Second Draft of summary of TAG issue abstractComponentRefs-37

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:02:14 -0400
Message-ID: <077f01c30c3f$82003330$b6f5d3ce@L565>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Williams, Stuart wrote:

>
> Hi David,
>
> I have an outstanding TAG action [1] to draft a finding to resolve
> metadataInURI-31 [2]. I'm conscious this has been languishing for a while
> and I need to make some progress - but I believe that I'm likely lift the
> lid of the URI opacity tin. Anyway, when we accepted issue-31 [3] it was
> with the express intent that saying that the encoding of metadata in URI
was
> exactly the wrong thing to be doing. I'm trying now to reconcile that
intent
> with the third requirement below:
>
> > 3. It should be possible to extract the type information from the URI
>
> These two seem at odds. Any thoughts?
>

Yup, they are at odds. I'd say that:

 URIs should be considered opaque by processes that assign URIs to
resources. URIs should only be parsed by processes that retrieve
representations of resources identified by a particular URI a.k.a. the
process of "URI resolution"

Jonathan
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2003 18:02:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:17 GMT