W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 1995

Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 11:03:00 +0100
Message-Id: <199511291003.LAA13194@dale.uninett.no>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
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


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?

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 1995 12:37:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:32 UTC