- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:12:10 +1000
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Since we're going on this tangent - Is this (proxying other URI schemes through HTTP) worth making a little more explicit? The question of whether non-HTTP URI schemes are allowed in HTTP comes up from time to time. Other issues (e.g., what to do with the Host header) come up as well. Cheers, On 15/05/2010, at 7:34 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On May 14, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote: > >> fre 2010-05-14 klockan 12:36 -0700 skrev Roy T. Fielding: >> >>> All schemes are dereferenceable, including urn, info, and tag. >> >> Are they? > > Yes. Any scheme can be proxied through HTTP, even when it > might be unwise to do so. > >> Quote from the tag scheme specification RFC4151: >> >> There is no authoritative resolution mechanism for tags. Unlike >> most other URIs, tags can only be used as identifiers, and are >> not designed to support resolution. If authoritative resolution >> is a desired feature, a different URI scheme should be used. >> >> Some of the URN name spaces have similar issues. > > That doesn't prevent anyone from introducing a resolution, deploying > it, and then configuring their web tools to dereference it. > > There is a long history of URN-like specifications living in some > fantasy land that has no correspondence with Web technology. > > ....Roy > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 06:12:42 UTC