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

Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200109251757.NAA12791@markbaker.ca>
To: robla@real.com (Rob Lanphier)
Cc: uri@w3.org
> There's nothing wrong with there being a well-known location for IANA 
> URLs.  However, many mechanisms defined by the W3C rely on URIs as a means 
> of expressing registry information (SMIL systemComponent is the one I'm 
> primarily interested in, but I understand CC/PP has a similar concern). In 
> order to have interoperability between implementations, both 
> implementations need to implement the *same* scheme.  Redirects are *not* 
> acceptable.

Wouldn't that depend on the type of redirect?

A 301 means a firm "The requested resource has been assigned a new
permanent URI [...]", whereas a 302 means a softer "The requested
resource resides temporarily under a different URI."

I suggest that a 301 redirect should mean exactly what you suggest
redirects should not mean.

Anyhow, I'm all for moving media type URLs under iana.org.  If this is
done soon, I think we can forgo needing redirects to be set up, as I'm
not aware of any deployed software that uses the ISI URLs.

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 13:55:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:39 UTC