W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > September 2009

Re: CT: URI patterns

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:08:20 +0200
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Public BPWG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u0yun6i9wxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:32:06 +0200, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

> We considered other URI patters and they were dropped as part of the  
> normative/non-normative heuristic discussions under ISSUE-288 and  
> resolved in March [1].
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Mar/0174.html
> Of course any resolution is open to being torn up and contradicted by a  
> subsequent resolution, but before doing so I would appreciate detailed  
> commentary as to why that is necessary given the depth of previous  
> discussion on the topic.

Ah. Because I disagree with the resolution, of course :) (I can live with  
it though, so there is no change to the consensus).

> FWIW as a passionate fan of URI Patterns for Grouping of resources I'd  
> be happy to use that reference but for a list of 1 pattern it may be a  
> bit excessive.

While I can live with the group's assertion that there is currently one  
pattern (and even the implication that this list may not be maintained in  
the long term) I think that the pattern used should be more clearly  
specified. If the group is prepared to go with 'anything in the top level  
domain ".mobi" and nothing else' (as far as URI patterns go) then it  
should say so ina  way more easily comprehensible to people. If it wants  
to maintain the idea that another dozen or 50 domains might spring up  
(.mobi.no for example) then a reference to the pattern might be a  
convenient shorthand...



> Jo
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:07:59 +0200, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>  > Appendix E assumes that everyone understands what *.mobi means...
>  > Without wishing to add to the burden, one could make this idea a  >  
> little more extensible and less arbitrary with reference to [1].
>  > [...]
>  > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-powder-grouping-20090901/#wild
> Yes, providing a pointer that explains what the syntax means (or even
> copying it) would be a good idea.

Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 12:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC