Comment on cturi spec (RE: Excess URI schemes considered harmful)

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> Thanks for the endorsement.  I've been a bit remise in working on my
> draft recently.  I plan to make one more very minor pass over it, post
> an updated version, and then request IESG action as a Proposed
> Standard. But I'm certainly open to receiving comments now and, if the
> IESG chooses to proceed, there will be an opportunity for the
> community to comment during the Last Call.

Great, glad to hear it's moving forward.

My only nit with the current draft is with the remapping of ";" in
the media type string to "&" in the URI.  Seeing as how the W3C is trying
to eradicate the use of "&" in URIs, it would make sense to leave ";" as


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Lanphier []
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 2:36 PM
> To: Al Gilman; Tim Berners-Lee; Larry Masinter;;
> Dan Zigmond; Rich Petke; Donald.Eastlake
> Cc:; Dan Connolly
> Subject: RE: Excess URI schemes considered harmful
> At 01:56 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
> >At 11:34 AM 2001-09-25 , Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > >Please describe the *exact* encoding for the media type "text/plain" under
> > >this scheme.
> > >
> >
> >[Contingent on IANA endorsement what Mark Baker gave us] to refer to _exactly_
> >what IANA had to say _today_ about the text/plain media type, I believe a
> >valid
> >reference could be spelled
> >
> ><urn:tdb:20010925:>
> >
> >For a reference which recovers what IANA had to say about that type
> >designation as of when you use the reference, you could of course use simply:
> >
> >
> >
> >... and this might return no recovered value for the resource some day.
> The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
> 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.
> This infinitely flexible system may be just peachy in a dream world where
> implementers have infinite time to tinker around with all of the
> equivalencies, but at the end of the day, I'm really tired of people
> theorizing that a well-thought out media type <-> URI spec isn't necessary.
> For those of you joining late (there were a couple of outdated email
> addresses in the "To:" line) the archive of this discussion is here:
> ...and I'm arguing in favor of the Eastlake proposal for doing URI<->Media
> Type mappings:
> Rob

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 03:34:13 UTC