Re: LDP Best Practices Question

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:

> Hi Cody,
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Do you guys think it might be worthwhile to specify a best practice
> suggesting that the protocol portion of a canonical URI for a resource
> should always be expressed in http and not https?
>
> well, not always, but at least whenever the description of that resource is
> available through both HTTP and HTTPS. Yes, that sounds like a good idea,
> however...

You should see 
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-01.txt

>> Since implementers will likely be creating systems that generate URI
> structures based on the existing application context, I can see it being
> easy to capture the existing protocol, which may be https. But I kind of
> feel like it should be up to the web server to resolve http URIs to https
> when the URI is used to fetch a resource.
>
> I'm assuming you meant "up to the *client* to resolve..." .
> This is tricky, because the client is not in general allowed to infer
> anything from the internal structure of the URI,
> and what you suggest amounts to inferring that two URIs differing only by
> the http(s): part are necessariy equivalent. Furthermore, how would the
> client know that a given http: resource is also available through https: ?
>
> So I would not suggest that the client may freely choose to switch between
> http and https when "following its nose". On the other hand, making this
> explicit for each resource  ( http://a.b/c owl:sameAs https://a.b/.c ) is
> tedious and ugly...
>
> May be we could specify an HTTP header where the server could specify that
> all URIs matching a given regexp have the http/https equivalence? May be we
> could use POWDER for thar?
>
>  Pa
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Cody Burleson
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 14:19:39 UTC