- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:05:24 -0800
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk, www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 12:30:56PM +0200, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > The scheme name is completely irrelevant to a URI's capacity for > > identification -- it merely indicates the syntax for that > > namespace and, > > when used in the context of a user action, some hint to the software > > responsible for that action as to how it should go about handling the > > identifier. > > I really can't agree with that. That's okay, it's a (mostly) free world. > That's like saying that, because a 'mailto:' URI is a URI and > URI's can identify anything, I can use a 'mailto:' URI to > denote an abstract concept ... Yes, you can. It is just an identifier. A variable. A mathematical symbol described by a sequence of characters in a syntax defined by the first part of that string leading up to the colon character. > and software should *know* that > it means the abstract concept and not a way to send some > content to a particular mailbox. Nonsense. Software doesn't *know* squat -- it has no intelligence, not even AI. It is merely used for various purposes. > Sorry... I just don't see that as beneficial to the web. It is the Web. > The dilution of semantics of URLs and URNs into just URI > creates just too much confusion about the nature of specific > URI schemes which invites abuse which results in chaos. The only chaos I have seen is in the writings of more recent specifications that ignore the research and experience of the Web developers in favor of their own personal view of an ideal world. When they implement something that works and has the same expressive power as the Web itself, then I will take their writings seriously. > The URI scheme *should* say something about the nature and > general semantics of the identifiers grounded in that > scheme. To say that the scheme identity is irrelevant and > everything goes is ludicrous. > > Why not then toss out *all* URI schemes, and just call > everything 'uri:'?! That is explained in Tim's original Web design notes and 1993 papers on the Web. The notion that everyone is going to agree on the same namespace, let alone the same syntax, just isn't practical, and with the proper design it isn't necessary. So why waste time trying to convince everyone to use a single namespace? Tim's recent argument isn't about making everyone use "http" as a namespace -- it is about not wanting everyone to create their own namespace just because they can. Sure, it is possible, but it creates additional work and complexity for everyone else. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 16:08:53 UTC