- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:13:07 -0800
- To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 12:49 PM, Michael Mealling wrote:
>
> 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....
I'm a bit surprised by this; I had though that it was agreed that mailto
specifically does not specify an action, but only identifies a mailbox;
it's up to the consumer of the URI to determine what to do with it when
it's dereferenced.
> 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.
Where does it say this? The abstract says
This memo specifies a URI (Universal Resource Identifier) scheme
"sms" for specifying a recipient (and optionally a gateway) for an
SMS message.
I'd think that identifying messages is best left to mechanisms like
mid's.
> 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...
I'd agree with that; one should say 'the person who uses the mailbox
foo@bar.com'; e.g.,
[ foaf:mbox <foo@bar.com> ]
--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 16:13:11 UTC