- From: Craig A. Finseth <fin@finseth.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:32:39 -0600 (CST)
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
- Cc: uri@Bunyip.Com
Your proposal for an "eid" URL scheme fails the first fundamental criterion for a "Uniform Resource Locator", namely that it be "Uniform", and have the same meaning no matter what context. Three points, Frist, not all existing URLs have this property (consider "file:"). Second, Many -- if not most -- data transfer and specification protocols have provisions for what is essentially "vendor private" data. It is my opinion that the URL scheme _should_ have made provisions for this type of escape mechanism at the outset. Third, you are making an incorrect assumption. _Within_ any given implementation, I expect that the "same meaning" concept would still apply. It's just that in this case it is up to the implementation to ensure that its usages are kept within the system. So, why go to all this bother? Why not just keep the private data private? The reason is that people who make these implementations need to be able to carve off a space that they know won't be used by anyone else. Again, a standard concept. Please reconsider, You do point out a significant point of confusion and I am certainly willing to rewrite the document to clarify the justfication. It may also make sense to publish it as an Informational rather than standards track RFC. However, I do feel that the concept is an important one and it should be part of at least the RFC (as different from Internet Standards) process. Craig
Received on Thursday, 5 November 1998 10:41:01 UTC