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

[metaDataInURI-31]: Initial draft finding for public review/comme nt.

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:41:46 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A0760D@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Folks,

I've been drafting a finding [1] for TAG issue metadataInURI-31 [2] which
discusses the encoding of resource properties in URI and the inference of
resource properties from URI.

In discussion with the TAG there different viewpoints. At one end of the
scale is a simple statement of "Don't peek inside URIs" (restricting just
client behaviour it think). At the other end is a view that its ok to infer
things that can be derived from a delegated chain of specifications and
policies rooted in the URI specification. URI assignment authorities may
publish policies on the structure of URI paths and/or queries that they
serve.

This draft is closer to the latter position and written from the
point-of-view that there is deeper discussion to be had. Are there things
that can be inferred based on knowledge of the governing specifications -
are scheme and query components truly opaque? Does the presense of a
fragment ID make a material difference to the sort of thing being reference
(shades of httpRange-14)? There is also the question of the role of the
person or software inspecting a URI: an observer of assignments made by
others; the assignment authority itself; and intermediate infrastructure
such as proxies, gateways and caches.

I would appreciate some feedback on this draft. Whether a simpler, shorter,
finding is a better path to take? Whether "Don't peek inside URIs" is all
that need be said?

Thanks in advance,

Stuart Williams
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31-20030708.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#metadataInURI-31
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 09:44:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:18 GMT