- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:23:16 -0400
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:11:36PM -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > At 01:52 PM 10/27/00 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote: > >So the issue is getting a URI as some value in a protocol or document > >element and, since you don't have control over it you have no way to > >be sure that the relationship between the URI and the Resource is > >what you expected? > > You may not even have a faint clue what the URI means, since there are so > many potential schemes for URIs. That tends to make it rather difficult to > make any claims about the Resource. IMHO, an application that defines an element that can take _any_ URI scheme as a value needs to specify how it handles this problem or if it cares that it is a problem. In lots of specs that use URIs this was never done and it has come back to bite us. There are several cases where I would preferred that the application specify a limited set of URIs that were applicable. > (In the case of http, it isn't even clear what statements can be made about > a given http URI, though the scheme is certainly familiar.) Yep.... > A means of retrieving supporting metadata would at least provide a > possibility of getting some information, if not an assurance. RESCAP is supposed to be solving that issue.... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Friday, 27 October 2000 14:33:30 UTC