Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Wed, 29 Nov 1995 11:03:00 +0100


Message-Id: <199511291003.LAA13194@dale.uninett.no>
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
Subject: Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:45:36 PST." <9511281945.aa24567@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 11:03:00 +0100

Re the statement

>   <li> Are there ways of using pieces of the information inside it
>        that implementations are supposed to get right?

I was thinking of the case where someone comes up with a scheme like

foobarlibrary:/stack=3/shelf=5/pos=3cm/librarian=jones/

where the meaning would be "look in stack 3, shelf 5, 3 cm from the left,
and if it isn't there, call for Jones".
An application would then be expected to pick out the components
/stack=3/shelf=5/pos=3cm/ and /librarian=jones/, and use each piece in
one part of the foobarlibrary access method.
(Note: The example was chosen for its silliness!)

If something is designed to be broken into pieces, it should document
what those pieces are, why it should be broken in this way, and why the
breaks aren't where 1808 says that they usually should be.

The language of the sentence is bad, but I don't want to make it much longer?
does anyone have alternative language here?

          Harald