- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:00:30 -0500
- To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
At 12:57 04/02/27 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >At 11:14 AM 2004-02-27, Martin Duerst wrote: >>At 15:06 04/02/24 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >>>Has there been abuse? Is there a public discussion of it somewhere? >> >>Yes, at least proposed. There were proposals for schemes that tried >>to say something like "in general, you don't need to send the fragment >>identifier, but for this scheme, you actually do". >> >>That's what Larry's statement at >>http://www.w3.org/mid/0HTK004JSDWDTK@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com >>would address. > >What did Larry say? I specifically meant: "I think that the important bit is that the fragment identifier is not used in the scheme-specific processing of the URI." I think that's not what you address in your comments below. Regards, Martin. >He said that you can't identify client and server in the future, >so don't key rules to those roles. > >He did offer that one might rephrase the rule as keyed to the >scheme-specific processing. But that was simply to avoid the >above problem. He wasn't introducing any evidence of >abuse, that is to say instances where violation of this rule >had been exploited to do something bad. > >Larry's statement is IMHO grounded in HTTP and HTML. I didn't regard it as >a position taken after a careful review of the model and functioning of the >'info' scheme. > >'Abuse' requires actual damage, not simply the violation of a clause in a >draft spec. > >Hopefully Larry will find time to comment again. > >On the other hand, there may be a perfectly good binding in URI syntax for >the 'info' model that uses path segments or ?query-part name-value selectors >rather than #fragments for what the current proposal uses #fragments for. > >Al > >>Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 16:10:04 UTC