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.

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

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