- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:20:00 -0500
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
On 02/25/2014 05:00 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > [ . . . ] > In that sense, it seems to be a reasonable compromise. You can put the > WEIRDS interface on a server of your choice, at a path of your choice. > But you can't tweak the structure below that path. +1 This looks to me like a very sensible design, not at all in conflict with WebArch or anti-squatting principles, to the extent that I understand the issue based on MNot's description https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg11386.html In essence, the server owner is *choosing* to delegate a small portion of his/her URI space to WEIRDS bootstrapping. That sounds exactly how URI allocation should work. Have I missed something? > > This may not be the ideal solution, but the ideal solution might include > that the server owner can put the various resources involved at > arbitrary, independent locations, increasing the bootstrap overhead. That would seem to me to be pointless additional complexity, since the server owner can internally map the relative URI locations to whatever they want anyway. David Booth
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 16:20:30 UTC