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

RE: [schemeProtocols-49] New issue on relationship of URI schemes to protocols and operations

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:48:18 -0500
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF80DFCBEB.F71408BC-ON85256FC5.00779DA9@lotus.com>

Larry Masinter writes:

> Don't confuse "the protocol you might use" with
> the "actual meaning of the URI". A "ftp:" URI is
> defined to *mean* something having to do with the
> FTP protocol. There is nothing in the "ftp:" URI
> scheme definition that makes any reference to the
> meaning having any roots in HTTP.  The fact that
> you might, in some circumstances, decide to use
> the HTTP protocol to resolve a "ftp:" URI doesn't
> change the URIs meaning.

Right, although I think there may be some subtlties in the case where you 
do own a DNS name, have never in history deployed an ftp server at that 
address, have chosen to assign names there using the ftp scheme names, and 
for whatever reason are serving representation using the HTTP protocol. I 
think you have to tell a slightly more subtle story along the lines of: "I 
own the DNS name and the fact that I (a) could have deployed an actual ftp 
server for this resource and (b) warrant that in any case I will not 
deploy what I consider to be a different resource using ftp at that same 
URI name, together license my use of the ftp scheme for this resource." 

I also think there is something squishy about the claims that operations 
follow from the URI scheme, but we can serve resources from one scheme 
using another.  It feels like we need to tell a story about the operations 
either being the same or somehow mappable.  Not quite sure what that story 
should be (and I'm not the best expert in these areas in any case, which 
is among the reasons I cc:'d you.)

> I suggest you include the uri@w3.org mailing list
> (both IETF and W3C URI interest group) in
> discussions, if any.

I tend to feel that long-term cross posting is messy, and this is likely 
to be a protracted discussion.   That said, it's OK with me if other tag 
members agree.  I'll hold off for a day or two, and if we decide to do 
that, I'll send uri@w3.org an intro note with links to correspondence 
already missed. OK? 



Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 00:06:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:45 UTC