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

Re: [Fwd: simple case of IRIs for Components in WSDL 2.0] (abstractComponentRefs-37 )

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:24:43 -0400
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF9946D47B.69AE55EF-ON8525708B.004AB201-8525708C.004F2B8D@lotus.com>

I asked earlier in this thread whether there was a reason that "#" should 
be preferred to "/" for 
members of namespaces in particular.

Tim Berners-Lee responded:

> Er... without any deployed representations what does / have over #?

> And when you deploy stuff, the # builds on very basic web 
> architecture which has been tested for ages and the / builds on HTML
> redirects which have just been dreamed up by the TAG and not 
> seriously deployed at all yet as far as I know.

I thought we agreed that namespaces can be information resources, and 
therefore can appropriately return representations with status code 200.  
So, I wasn't intending to talk about the 302 redirect case.  Rather, I was 
presuming that, at least in the '/' case, there were representations both 
for the namespace as a whole and for the individual members of the 
namespace, each served with status code 200.  So, N+1 representations 
served from N+1 URIs.

Whatever the other pros and cons, I don't think this depends on the 
admittedly new proposal to use redirects for non-information resources. 
Again, I'm not expressing a preference for "/" over "#", just asking 
whether there's any reason why "/" should be prohibited or strongly 
discouraged in the case of namespaces.  There may be such a reason, but 
I'm not convinced that a need for redirects is it.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 14:25:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:46 UTC