- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 22:07:08 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, dwm@xpasc.com, koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen: > >At 10:23 AM 5/13/97 PDT, Larry Masinter wrote: > >>So I'm wary of using URLs in PEP or in feature negotiation >>as a way of identifying content types and features. It's not >>that it is unworkable, but the issue needs to be addressed. > >But URLs don't all have to point to "http://my-flacky-company.com/~henrik". >Well-proven extensions can point to (hopefully) stable things like IANA, >IETF, ISO, W3C, and the like. I can see no reason why URLs can not be just >as reliable as registered tokens. To me, this is a question of policy, not >technology :-) I agree. I also like to add that I see no big problem in continuing to use the "http://my-flacky-company.com/~henrik" extension if the server dies, or is taken over. A malicious party could take over the my-flacky-company.com domain and bind different semantics to the URL rather than not serving it anymore, but I don't think this social risk is much bigger than lots of other identity theft risks we have in the internet. I must admit though that, the more I think about using URLs as identifiers, the more attractive IANA-based registration seems. I therefore plan to rework the feature tag registration draft into a x:/ftag:/whatever: URI registration draft, which allows parties to reserve chunks of a hierarchical namespace, so that people have an alternative to URLs. Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 1997 13:12:49 UTC