- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:49:32 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 12:38:54PM -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The 'mailto' [1] and proposed 'sms' [2] schemes allow multiple resources
> to be identified by a single URI; e.g.,
>
> mailto:bob@example.org,mary@example.com
> sms:+41796431851,+4116321035
>
> Is this encouraged in new schemes? I.e., is it a good idea to have a
> one-to-many uri-to-resource mapping?
The first paragraph of the Introduction in RFC2368 not withstanding, I
think both documents identify an action ("send mail this way", or "send
an sms this way") instead of actual mailboxes or end points. I would
prefer documents to be precise about what they actually identify but
as long as they do so and people use the identifier in a way consistent
with that statement then I think its ok....
In other words, the SMS document has it right: the URI here identifies
and "SMS message" not the end point for an SMS message. An end point is
needed as part of an "SMS message" in order to be meaninful but it isn't
the end point that's being identified.
In many cases people have been using mailto:foo@bar.com to identify the
human user who currently 'uses' that mailbox and IMHO, that's also a serious
semantic mistake...
-MM
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1
michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 15:51:01 UTC