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

+1.

This isn't a techical response, but an intuition that 
the more a URI is treated as content, the more worms 
will appear in the can.  Metadata is content; URIs 
should identify content, not carry it.

Is it possible to just label this as "bad practice" and 
let the risk fall on the implementor?

len


From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@sun.com]

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.