- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:39:18 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Sort of an aside, and I hope at worst not disruptive... Jonathan Rees wrote: > Hardly! If for U the server responds with a wa-representation X that is > *not* a wa-representation of the resource in question G, then it is *not* > consistent with G at U. That is, some *other* resource might be > served by S at U. Long ago, when I first joined the TAG, I attempted to write a working draft on the relationship between URI schemes and protocols. There were several drafts, each of which led to a lot of difficult debate, leading me to conclude that, at the time anyway, I knew too little about the Web to write such a finding. So, I put it aside. The quote above does remind me of something I tried in the last draft that I wrote. I made an attempt to set out rules that applied to the responsibilities of servers, clients, etc., one of which was [1]: "4.1.2 R2. Serve faithfully "A server MUST serve resources faithfully. Regardless of the protocol used, the server is responsible for ensuring that the correct resource is accessed, that operations are correctly implemented according to the specifications for the protocol, and thus that the correct resource state is either retrieved or updated. In the example above, serving the ftp resource using HTTP is appropriate only insofar as the operations of HTTP can in good faith be supported on that particular resource. The server must have access to the state of the resource, using an FTP gateway or by some other means, and it must ensure that all supported HTTP operations properly retrieve or update the state of the resource. "For many combinations of scheme name and protocol, such faithful serving is by definition impossible. For example, there is probably no faithful manipulation of a mailto: resource possible using the FTP protocol. Thus, this rule prohibits use of many combinations of schemes and protocols." As I recall, this formulation did not meet with a lot of support from the members then on the TAG, but I find that I do still think about things in these terms. Maybe or maybe not some of the other "rules" will eventually prove close to the mark. Anyway, the proposed "serve faithfully" rule seems very much complementatary to the assumption embodied in the quote from Jonathan. Perhaps thinking about this will suggest some useful approaches to the G/U/IR questions. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html#serverGoodFaith -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 16:37:58 UTC