- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:06:30 +0000
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, uri@w3.org
At 12:22 16/02/04 -0500, Martin Duerst wrote: >Hello Adam, Roy, > >- I think the 'localhost' convention should only apply to reg-names that > are domain/host names. I think it's inappropriate to impose this > convention on other registry names; they may have completely different > needs (i.e. not actually refering to machines,...) or syntax > (e.g. numerical,...). I noticed this too, and feel similarly (but not very strongly). I would expect the "localhost" convention to be scheme-specific rather than applicable to all URIs. But there is a related question to which I think the answer should be clear: Is it ever OK to rewrite scheme:///foo as scheme:/foo ? I think, and this was reinforced by the documented "localhost" convention, that the answer is "no". >- On the other hand, 'localhost' should work for all dns-based schemes. I'm less convinced of this point. If it does work for all DNS-based schemes (or Internet hostname based schemes), I think that's a feature of Internet host naming, not of URIs. > "Individual URI schemes can require support for this custom." may > suggest otherwise. > >- For the exact details, I don't really think it matters that much > whether 'localhost' is resolved by lookup or otherwise. #g -- ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 13:18:37 UTC