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

IANA and HTTP URLs, Dogfooding, was: Link: relation registry and 303

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:17:12 +0100
Message-ID: <4982C598.90703@gmx.de>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

Hi,

I think the discussion misses at least two important points, so I'll 
start with a fresh mail about them...:

1) The IANA, the RFC-Editor (and to some degree the IETF) historically 
have a problems considering HTTP URLs to be stable in any way. For 
instance, the RFC-Editor rejects URLs in citations, even when the author 
can demonstrate that the URL has been stable for many many years. 
Instead he/she suggests to just link to the site, and then let the 
reader figure out how to find the individual document (see discussion 
around 
<http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2008-November/000986.html>).

Furthermore, there are rules not to publish URLs of IANA registries at 
all, so IANA right now isn't even committing to keep the existing 
registry URLs stable. So asking them for 303-instead-of-200 appears to 
be very optimistic to me.

2) On the other, to convince people to follow httpRange-14 it probably 
would help if the W3C demonstrated it's use. For instance, why is an XML 
namespace an information resource, while a link relation isn't?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 09:17:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:11 GMT