Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?
Chris Newman (Chris.Newman@innosoft.com)
Tue, 04 Feb 1997 10:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 10:19:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?
In-Reply-To: <9702031939.aa27458@paris.ics.uci.edu>
To: IETF URI list <uri@bunyip.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970204100817.15059E-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> My opinion is that I would like to see a need for this change before
> trying to make it a standard. In other words, I have yet to see a
> compelling application espoused that would require the use of unordered
> attribute-value pairs within a URL-using application, other than FORMs
> entry which already has a different syntax. Combining that with the
> inability to use such a feature until all current software is upgraded,
> my current opinion is that we should not make the change.
Specific example: IMAP URLs.
Folder names in IMAP are hierarchical. In addition, IMAP has the ability
to fetch messages and MIME parts of messages in a folder. The basic
syntax for a section of a message is currently:
imap://<hostport>/<folder-path>;UID=<message uid>;SECTION=1.2
Now if I take a relative URL of ";SECTION=1.3" to refer to a different
MIME section of the same message, the only reasonable resolution is:
imap://<hostport>/<folder-path>;UID=<message uid>;SECTION=1.3
Note that having a "SECTION" without a "UID" is meaningless. UID can't be
included in the folder-path because that would make it ambiguous since
folder-path can include "/".
Because IMAP support needs to be deployed before this URL scheme is
implemented anyway, I simply wrote this in as an exception to the
current rules. I don't like exceptions, but applying the current rules
results in nonsense. Now if the rules were updated, the exception
wouldn't be necessary.