- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:41:21 -0500
- To: uri@w3.org
Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com wrote: > > This is a couple'o (key) messages from a thread over on the > bxxpwg@invisible.net list that may be of interest to folks here. Thanks for bringing it up here; this is an issue folks have been noodling on for years: [[[ Short UDIs UDIs should be kept short and devoid of information that indicates the mechanism by which the document is retrieved. (in the theoretically clean implementation, the protocol information should not be present). ]]] -- DosDonts -- /DesignIssues TimBL, ~1990 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/DosDonts.html See also: Decoupling the URL Scheme from the Transport Protocol http://www.ansa.co.uk/ANSA/ISF/decoupling.html crud... 404 ... google search... ah: http://www.ansa.co.uk/ANSATech/ANSAhtml/95-97-websites/ISF/decoupling.html 30 Nov 1995; <rtor@ansa.co.uk> But folks have mostly avoided the practical side of this issue by layering everything on top of http; a noteable exception is https:, where I wish we would have avoided putting the "secure" flag in the name. I hope to find time to study the practical details of the design you're discussing. But for now, I hope the historical pointers are useful/interesting... > The discussion is nominally about whether the URI identifying a service that > may be available via muliple protocols should convey/reflect this and how it > might do so. > > The bxxpwg@invisible.net is here.. > > http://lists.invisible.net/pipermail/bxxpwg/ > > ..and the message that instigated the thread is here.. > > http://lists.invisible.net/pipermail/bxxpwg/2001-June/000513.html > > JeffH -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ p.s. I'm on holiday next week, 16-23 Jun.
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 12:41:23 UTC