- From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:11:10 -0700
- 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