W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2001

Re: fyi: should URIs convey protocol/service layering?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:41:21 -0500
Message-ID: <3B2A3AB1.C73584DD@w3.org>
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

See also:

  Decoupling the URL Scheme from the Transport Protocol 
	crud... 404 ... google search... ah:
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC