W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 2002

Re: discovering site metadata

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:32:32 -0800
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-talk@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020208093225.G1858@mnot.net>

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:59:20AM -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
> >I think it's much more than that; it's a resource that is the
> >hierarchical root of all other resources made available by that
> >authority.
> This is commercial custom but not part of the technical specification. 

Sure it is; RFC1808. (and why just 'commercial' custom?)

> Hierarchy in the namespace is a syntactic convenience as far as
> URIs are concerned, the sense as nested contexts is a good guess
> based on practice but not a requirement to use this form of URL. 
> Compare with URL-encoded script parameters that use path segments
> rather than the searchpart syntax.  The sense of the sequence of
> path segments is at the discretion of the service offeror.

Of course you can stuff anything you want in URIs; My site can be
composed of


if I really want to. However, the Web is architected to take
advantage of the relationships between resources and their

> A collection of data which is excised from the assets on hand at a
> server and dispatched to a recipient as a representation of "a
> resource" needs more "packaging for delivery" than just the
> Location reference.  Anything from the context of that Location
> that matters should be pulled into the packaging (SOAP envelope,
> HTTP headers) as an explicit reference.

Is the SOAP envelope becoming the de facto XML packaging mechanism?
I've been wondering about this since XMLP started...

Mark Nottingham
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 12:57:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:03 UTC