Re: The 'javascript' scheme

Hi Paul,

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 11:23 PM +0100 11/8/06, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> When you click on one of the following links,
>>   <a href='news:de.comp.text.xml'>...
>>   <a href=''>...
>>   <a href=''>...
>>   <a href='telnet://'>...
>>   <a href='irc://'>...
>>   <a href='tel:555-5555'>...
>> would you say your browser obtains representations?
> Yes
> No
> No
> No
> No
> No

I'd say "yes" to (at least) all the mailto: cases.  Someone else described this
better, but roughly the resource in case is a mail submission form.  Ah, hang
on, there's one with your name on it:
   A mailto URL designates an "internet resource", which is the mailbox
   specified in the address. When additional headers are supplied, the
   resource designated is the same address, but with an additional
   profile for accessing the resource. While there are Internet
   resources that can only be accessed via electronic mail, the mailto
   URL is not intended as a way of retrieving such objects

Hmmm... that's not the particular description I was looking for, but it helps to

> That is, some URI schemes get representations, and many others get
> actions. We have dealt with this for a very long time, particularly when
> we worked on the big revision to mailto: in 1997-1998.

(The revision appears to agree with me - see above.)

I *do* get a representation (presented, as it happens, in my mail client) when I
enter this URI into my browser:

I can then interact with this representation and eventually invoke an action
(when I press the "send" button).  I think that that action is distinct from the
resource representation .

My unease with the javascript: case is that it's not so easy to identify an
identified resource.  How is one to interpret a javascript: URI if it appears in
a non-hyperlink type of context where other URIs can and do appear?


Graham Klyne
For email:

Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 10:49:34 UTC