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

Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:11:10 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010925110933.033783b0@goobox.prognet.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Implementations which rely on a URI encoding of a media type should not be 
required to dereference a URI to determine equivalency.  Redirects assume 
dereferencing.

Rob

At 01:57 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> > 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 14:12:41 UTC

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