- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:49:55 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
tbray@textuality.com (Tim Bray) writes: >So at the moment I'm just not convinced that it's fruitful to start to >write extra rules along the lines of "http:-class URIs must be used to >identify things of type yyy" - de facto they're being used as >identifiers for the weirdest stuff imaginable and in ways that span the >whole spectrum of human creativity, and I just don't see the upside in >trying to build fences. -Tim There is no need for "extra rules". The fences are already plainly specified in RFC 2616: >3.2.2 http URL > >The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP >protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and >semantics for http URLs. > >http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]] > > If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The semantics >are that the identified resource is located at the server listening >for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the Request-URI >for the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2).... HTTP resources are critters that live on HTTP servers. Seems pretty plain, even boringly well-worn. Seems to work very well, too. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 18:49:08 UTC