- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:44:56 +0900
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, uri@w3.org
- Cc: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Definitions are often choosen on their practical value, rather than on philosophical considerations. In this case, the URI is what you (e.g.) send to the server, the URI Reference is what you (e.g.) put into an attribute. Regards, Martin. At 14:32 02/04/04 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: >This touches on something that's been on my mind for a while. > >If a query is "a string of information to be interpreted by the resource," >isn't it the case that a URI with a query refers to a resource, rather >than just identifies one? E.g., <http://www.example.com/foo?bar=baz> is a >reference to the resource <http://www.example.com/foo>. > >I.e., shouldn't the definition of URI-Reference (rather than URI) include >not only fragments, but also queries? > > >On Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 01:47 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> >>On Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 01:19 PM, Michael Mealling wrote: >>> >>>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.... >> >>mailto allows you to specify a subject, body, etc. in the query >>component, which is defined by 2396 as: "...a string of information to be >>interpreted by the resource." Considering other uses of queries, this >>seems to fit in nicely. >> >>http://www.example.com/foo?bar=baz can identify the resource foo with the >>argument bar=baz, and it also affects the message sent when dereferencing >>the URI. mailto:bob@example.net?Subject=Make+Money+Now can cause a >>message with that subject to be sent when dereferenced, but it can also >>be used to locate a message in the mailbox. >> >>sms uses a parameter to specify a body, which seems broken. This is one >>of the things I'll be commenting about. >> >-- >Mark Nottingham >http://www.mnot.net/ >
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 02:42:03 UTC