W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2005

Re: [schemeProtocols-49] Editor's draft of finding on schemeProtocols-49

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:26:15 -0400
Message-Id: <5cc1bf84e19f975f46cfd3d436690cb8@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

On Jun 12, 2005, at 11:35 AM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> I've been working on an initial draft of a finding for issue
> schemeProtocols-49 [1].

Comments I scribbled on a printed version... which I gather is pretty 
close to
   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html
  12 June 2005

status: "This finding addresses" should be "This finding is intended to 
address ..."

1 Preface

"introduction of new schemes ... may sometimes be essential ..."

there are a number of weasel words... if you take them out,
you get "introduction of new scheme is necessary to the continued
success of the web" which is I don't think is sufficiently justified to
even weasel at. Perhaps that will be the conclusion *after* exploring
the p2p and streaming cases.

3 URI Assignment ...

"it is common to use XML namespace names... when no server is providing 
representations.
... not required by Web architecture ..."

It seems to condone that sort of thing, while webarch says you SHOULD 
NOT do that.


"need not be Web-based" dunno what to make of that

"uses a URI as its Request-URI" almost; it use a URI reference. Most 
HTTP GETs
looklike
    GET /foo
and not
   GET http://example/foo


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 18:26:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:36 GMT