- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 01:03:46 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@apache.org>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>, uri@w3.org
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 08:39:31PM -0800, Larry Masinter wrote: > There were discussions about 'mailto' on the URI > list from 1995 through 1998; note, for example, the > single mailbox & 'resource' theory in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1997Jan/0003.html > as opposed to the text in the final RFC. > > RFC 2368 was written to correspond to the practice > of "mailto", rather than the theory of URIs which > has them always identifying resources. A mailto with > multiple targets and a "subject" line isn't a very > good resource identifier, but it works in hrefs. > An unadorned "mailto" with a single mailbox identifier > can also work as a resource identifier. > > So practice doesn't match theory, and trying to > fit it is pretty unsatisfactory: > I don't think it's worth it to try to shoehorn > "mailto:bob@example.org,mary@example.com" into the > theory that URIs _always_ identify resources. That one > doesn't, and making up a story about it doesn't help > out much. But I think the point of the original post was to point out that something similar has started through the standardization process which can be fixed to reflect a more rigorous approach to what it actually identifies. Do we want to repeat what we did with 'mailto' or can we fix it when it comes up in other schemes.... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 01:07:01 UTC