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

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

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:12:07 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <8765mafb7c.fsf@nwalsh.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ MDaconta@aol.com was heard to say:
| In a message dated 7/9/2003 10:33:50 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
| Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM writes:
|
|> The original question[1] that was the impetus to raise this issue was
|> "should there be some standard way to encode metadata in URIs"?
|> 
|> I think the consensus is "no". I haven't heard anyone suggesting that,
|> for example, version information should be encoded in URIs with
|> "/VERx.y/" as a path component and that the string "/VERx.y/" in a URI
|> should always be interpreted as the version number of the resource.
|> I'm sure it would be convenient in some communities if a proposal
|> along these lines was adopted, but it isn't going to be.
|> 
|
| I would disagree that the consensus is "no".  It is only no in the 
| sense (which your example points out) of standardizing keywords.
| That should be left up to an assignment authority.  

Well, if it wasn't standardized globally, I don't see that it would be
of much use to agents in general. If I use /x.y/ for version x.y and
you use /x/y/, and Tim uses /x_y/ etc. then you can't actually tell if
a URI like this one "http://example.org/something/3.4/test" has a
version number or not.

| However, there is much more that could be standardized relating 
| to schemes, parts of schemes and syntax.  For example, if there are two
| methods for uniquely identifying a thing -- it would be nice to be able to
| specify in my URI metadata which "uniqueness" attribute I am using.

Can you give me an example of "two methods for uniquely identifying a
thing" where you'd want to choose one of them in the URI?

| But before you can even broach that you have to decide on whether URIs should 
| be opaque or not. That is where consensus must first be guaged.

Handed a random URI about which you know nothing, my position is that
it is opaque and you've got no business peeking inside it trying to
guess stuff.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | If you are losing your leisure, look out! You
XML Standards Architect | may be losing your soul.--Logan Pearsall Smith
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE/DbqHOyltUcwYWjsRAg/iAKCl82ThYxCMmHlyz7W5um+UWPIj9wCfTCII
fauUPuLaZD8G2QpM+fm1GYk=
=qEjs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 15:12:38 GMT

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