- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:19:07 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>, uri@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:13:07PM -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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. If it identified just the actual mailbox then you shouldn't be able to specify things like a Subject since mailboxes don't have Subjects. Maybe the word 'action' is wrong. Hmm... the 'message' itself? I dunno how to say it exactly. But 'mailbox' isn't right either.... > >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. If its only a recipient then how can it contain the body of the message that's going to be sent to the recipient(s)? -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 16:20:35 UTC