- From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:03:50 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, uri@w3.org, Atom WG <atom-syntax@imc.org>
Graham Klyne said: > > http://:@example.com/ > I'd say that's different from http://example.com/, in that it contains > empty username/password values, which the latter does not. For example, > following the exhortation not to expose passwords, my software would (by > default) display this as: > http://:********@example.com/ > whereas the other would be displayed unchanged. > > (I'm not claiming this is a *useful* distinction, but lacking any text that > says a null username/password is the same as having no username/password, > I'd say that it does exist.) Actually it is useful, because it means "you need a username/password" >> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# > I'd say this is distinct from http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema -- an > empty fragment is not the same as no fragment at all (note, when used as > namespace URI in an RDF document, they certainly would not give rise to the > same resource identifiers according to the RDF specifications -- see RDF > syntax spec (10 Feb 2004), section 6.1.2, URI accessor) I don't like this result. To my mind, the # separates "what goes to the host" from "what to look for within the resulting resource". I don't see a useful distinction between "don't look" and "look for nothing". HTTP doesn't distinguish them that I can see. Can you explain the RDF bit in words of one syllable? -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 Thus plc | |
Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 21:04:11 UTC