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

RE: New URI scheme talk in RSS-land

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:51:30 -0800
Message-ID: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1D5178E@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "www-tag @ w3. org" <www-tag@w3.org>

If it is a new URI scheme it has nothing to do with HTTP POST or GET any more than clicking a mailto URI in your web browser does. Your proposal involves changing web browsers and web servers all over the internet, the feed URI proposal involves users installing a client application that hands subscribing to syndicated feeds and getting this as a side effect. I know which one is more likely to actually work in practice. 
Keeping pure to an World Wide Web architecture that was created ex post facto is not a compelling argument in this case especially when there is precedent in said architecture. If not HTTP would be the URI scheme and network protocol we'd ever need (although based on various conversations on this list it seems there are many who actually hold this opinion). 
Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth, minus 40% inheritance tax. 


From: www-tag-request@w3.org on behalf of Elliotte Rusty Harold
Sent: Sat 12/6/2003 11:31 AM
To: Tim Bray
Cc: www-tag @ w3. org
Subject: RE: New URI scheme talk in RSS-land

I've lost the train of thought here. What's the actual use case? What
does this look like to the user? They press a button or follow a link
that says "Subscribe to RSS Feed" and the browser launches a separate
application to subscribe? Is this right?

If so, I think the new URI scheme is the wrong way to do this. It
seems to me it ought to be done with POST rather than GET since it's
unsafe, as has been mentioned before. Now given that it's done with
POST is it possible to use an HTTP response code to indicate that the
data should be subscribed to, or passed to a different application? I
don't think there's an HTTP response code that really fits here, but
perhaps one could be added? Additional information could be passed
through the fields of the HTTP header. The downside of this is that
it requires browsers to be updated to support the new code. However,
this seems much more in keeping with the web architecture than
inventing a new URI scheme just to hack around the behavior of
current browsers.

I do think it's correct that a GET on an http URI should always
display the content in the browser, assuming the browser speaks the
appropriate MIME type. I don't think the browser should automatically
defer all RSS documents to a different app.


   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2003 14:50:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:40 UTC