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

Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ebuilt.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:58:44 -0700
To: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, harald@alvestrand.no, Dan Zigmond <djz@corp.webtv.net>, Rich Petke <rpetke@wcom.net>, Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com, uri@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010925165844.D1081@waka.ebuilt.net>
> At the end of the day, it would be great if this community could agree on 
> *one* mapping between the two formats.  I'd get laughed out of the room if 
> I suggested as a work item for our developer team to map the n-to-n 
> possible ways a media type can be expressed as a URI as something we should 
> implement in any of our products.

Me too.  Personally, I think it is absurd to require all namespaces
be represented as absolute URI.  That is a pointless waste of bandwidth
and doesn't reflect the lessons learned from real-life usage of URI.

It is nice to be able to map any name to a universally-complete namespace with
a standardized root, but only if the common case is for the important bits
to be represented as a relative URI.  It doesn't even need to have a real
base -- just an imaginary one.

Of course, nobody can do that with the URN syntax, which is why I won't
be using it.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 20:03:35 UTC

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