- From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:14:53 +0000
- To: Digital Identity Exchange <dix@ietf.org>
- CC: uri@w3.org
Dick Hardt wrote: > On 17-Mar-06, at 1:29 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> ntroducing a new URI scheme just for DIX is not a good use of scarce >> community resources; What is scarce? n-letter combinations? This seems unlikely! >> let's not do the DAV: thing again. >> >> Instead of >> dix:/homesite >> just use something like >> http://dixs.org/terms#homesite > > Thanks for the input Dan. Sorry you won't make Dallas. I'm not familiar > with what happened with DAV: -- is there somewhere you can point for > enlightenment? Hmmm. Not sure what happened, but the outcome was that DAV uses the HTTP namespace and adds extra headers and methods to the requests. > Agree that we need to make good use of scarce community resources. > > Not being a standards guy, I am sure that I will be butchering > terminology -- please correct me! > > The reasoning behind introducing a new scheme was we need an escape > sequence for processing the name/value pairs and to differentiate data > from constants etc.. Anything starting with "dix:" is known to be a > constant. Anything else is not. :) -- one of the reasons for this is > that we want to be able to pass through name/value pairs that a web > application may be using to preserve state. We think the likelihood that > any existing app have strings that start with "dix:/" to be, well, > really really small. > > One might think that we could just use "http://dixs.org" as the escape > sequence, but we wanted anyone to be able to extend DIX, so having a new > scheme allows the scheme to be the escape, and the namespace and hence > the definition of properties that can be stored and retrieved to be > distributed rather then centralized. We reserved the use of dix:/foo > style constants (no name space) for ones that are defined in the DIX spec. > > Does this make sense? Do you have a suggestion for another approach that > provides an escape mechanism and allows decentralized property > /capability extension? It sounds to me like you could do this all with HTTP headers. Obviously that doesn't help with other protocols, of course! Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
Received on Saturday, 18 March 2006 13:39:09 UTC