- From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:34:53 +0100
- To: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>
- Cc: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, uri@w3.org
Trevor Perrin said: >> I agree meta: isn't very informative, so a better name would be good. >> On the other hand, secure/crypto might be too narrow. I'm thinking >> about other possible "metadata" you might want to attach to an URL. > I can't think of great uses for metadata like this beside crypto data, so I > wouldn't mind having a "secure" scheme just targeted to document hashes, > key/cert fingerprints, and key/cert-retrieval URLs, unless there's a > compelling reason to broaden it. Bitter experience says that it's always better to make the scheme as wide and extensible as possible. In particular, "why would you want that?" is almost a guaranteed recipe for later regrets. I also don't like "secure" because it isn't a secure link, it's a way of (in this case) checking that the target of the link hasn't changed. To most people, "secure" means untappable, as in the "s" of "https". -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | *** NOTE CHANGE *** Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 03:35:02 UTC