W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2009

ACTION-312 Find a path thru the specs that ...

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 08:44:44 -0500
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0912070544gd23ffa0s8809a26c50bd863@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
Re ACTION-312 "Find a path thru the specs that I think contradicts
Dan's reading of webarch" (remember this had to do with so-called
persistence):

Quoting from HTTPbis
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-08#section-2.6.1
:

   When an "http" URI is used within a context that calls for access to
   the indicated resource, a client MAY attempt access by resolving the
   host to an IP address, establishing a TCP connection to that address
   on the indicated port, and sending an HTTP request message to the
   server containing the URI's identifying data as described in
   Section 4.  If the server responds to that request with a non-interim
   HTTP response message, as described in Section 5, then that response
   is considered an authoritative answer to the client's request.

I think this just articulates what everyone already believes, but it's
not present in 2616...

To be willing to use an http: URI as a "persistent name" you need to
break the authority chain by doing one of the following:

(a) ignore what IANA says about URI scheme bindings,
(b) ignore what HTTPbis says about authoritative resolution for the
http: scheme,
(c) give "resolving" authority to an entity other than IANA,
(d) enter into a legal or social contract with IANA (possibly IETF)
that is at least as "persistent" as the social contract that has been
established around the urn: scheme, or
(e) deny any connection between resolution and naming.

The argument for urn: , info: , duri: etc. is based on rejecting
(a)-(e). That is, URN advocates grant authority to IETF and IANA, and
don't want to (or have failed to) negotiate with either in order to
claim a "name"-like territory inside http: URI space.

The willingness of the semantic web community to use http: URIs as
names could be based on a rejection of one of (a)-(e), a lack of
interest in persistence, a trust in entities such as W3C to maintain
correct http: URI resolution in perpetuity, or a belief that the
question is unimportant and we'll sort it out when we need to (the
last is really just a way to reject one or more of (a)-(e)).

If we're looking for a contradiction with AWWW, that may be
impossible, as you say, as AWWW does not explicitly invest any
particular authority in IETF, IANA, or even W3C and therefore does not
contradict any of (a)-(d). (It is pretty emphatic about rejecting (e)
though.) So I stand by my earlier statement that I cannot carry out
ACTION-312.

Jonathan

(also a propos ISSUE-50)
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 13:45:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:18 GMT