- From: Adam M. Costello BOGUS address, see signature <BOGUS@BOGUS.nicemice.net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:35:44 +0000
- To: uri@w3.org
I just looked at draft-vandesompel-info-uri-01 for the first time, and am puzzled by something. The reg_name component introduced in RFC-2396 seems tailor-made for a URI scheme like info, and yet info chooses not to use it. RFC-2396: URI that are hierarchical in nature use the slash "/" character for separating hierarchical components. Many URI schemes include a top hierarchical element for a naming authority, such that the namespace defined by the remainder of the URI is governed by that authority. This authority component is typically defined by an Internet-based server or a scheme-specific registry of naming authorities. info-uri-01: An "info-identifier" is constructed by appending an "identifier" component to a "namespace" component separated by a slash "/" character. The "info" URI scheme supports hierarchy as indicated by the presence of the slash "/" character. Values for the "namespace" component...identify the public namespace in which the (unescaped) value for the "identifier" component originates, and are registered in the "info" Registry, which guarantees their uniqueness. The alignment looks perfect, but info: does not use "//" and does not call its "namespace" an "authority". Why? If info: doesn't use reg_name, what ever would? If the approach being taken by info: is considered to be proper, then the conception of reg_name from RFC-2396 is being abandoned. Indeed, the reg-name token in 2396bis seems to be targeting a different usage. Whereas the RFC-2396 reg_name was a kind of non-host authority that could not have a port number, the 2396bis reg-name is a kind of host and can have a port number. Maybe the 2396bis vision is not to provide for abstract registered naming authorities as described in RFC-2396 and info-uri-01, but merely to allow network entities (hosts, services, domains) to be named using more naming systems than just RFC-1123 hostnames. Is that the intention? On the other hand, if the intention of 2396bis is that reg-name can really be an abstract naming authority, shouldn't info: be using it? Could there be a better candidate? AMC http://www.nicemice.net/amc/ P.S. This is one of several points of confusion that perhaps a successor to RFC-2718 could address by offering more guidelines about appropriate and inappropriate uses for each component of the generic URI syntax. For example, it might discuss how to decide whether to use an authority, and if not, whether to use a leading slash, and when to use a fragment vs. query-string vs. path-segment vs path-segment-with-semicolons vs. userinfo.
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 17:35:50 UTC