W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > September 2005

RE: [WNET] RE: WordNet Conversion

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:08:34 -0400
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B07559008911A8C@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Cc: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

> From: McBride, Brian
> 
> . . .
> 2.  Naming of things
> 
> There are a couple of things here.  With the TAG's guidance 
> on http-range-14, I presume that we are not free to use '/' 
                                          ^^^
Typo?  Did you mean "I presume that we are *now* free to use '/'"?

> characters in URIs to name abstract things, provided we do an 
> indirect.  This allows us to consult a word in a Wordnet 
> server without downloading all of Wordnet.  I also wonder 
> about using '?' to separate the root of the URI from the 
> concept id part.  This would avoid the redirect, but I've 
> sneaking suspicion I've forgotten why that is a bad idea.  

I believe you'll still need a 303 redirect even with the '?', so I don't
think the '?' would help in that respect.  My understanding of the TAG's
decision is that all of the URI except the fragment identifier (i.e.,
the part after '#') is transmitted in the HTTP request, and thus
constitutes part of the URI that the server is responding about.  If
others have understood this differently I'd like to know.

David Booth
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 16:10:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC