W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > March to April 2002

Re: "resolution mechanism"

From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:30:10 -0400
Message-Id: <200204130030.g3D0UAx02275@astro.cs.utk.edu>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, www-talk@w3.org
> Pretend HTTP didn't exist, and that all we knew was that we wanted a 
> protocol that could be used to resolve URI, while keeping in mind that 
> it is an error to try to build this protocol to only accept some URI, 
> and not all.

depends on what you mean by "resolve".  if you mean "ask for metadata",
then I'd say it should look a lot like RC.  if you mean "get", where
the payload is likely to be long and best transferred without loss,
then HTTP is not a bad approximation.  but IMHO "get" is best implemented
in different protocols for different kinds of media - I don't think it's
a good idea to try to make a one-size-fits-all get.

Keith

RC = draft-ietf-rescap-rc-01.txt
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 20:30:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT