W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2006

Re: The 'javascript' scheme

From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:17:05 -0800
Message-Id: <p06240852c1792cbebe28@[]>
To: uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org

At 9:15 AM +0100 11/9/06, Julian Reschke wrote:
>You need to install software on your machine (not in the browser) 
>that knows how to handle "tel" URIs.

I believe that even if the machine has software for handling "tel" 
URIs, that software will not "obtain a representation" of a phone 
number: it will initiate a phone call.

At 10:11 AM +0000 11/9/06, Graham Klyne wrote:
>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
>    automatically.
>-- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2368.txt

It may be "better", but I consider handwaving to achieve consensus to 
justify a decision that had been made earlier.

>I *do* get a representation (presented, as it happens, in my mail 
>client) when I
>enter this URI into my browser:
>   mailto:example@example.org?body=hello

It is a representation, but it is a representation of a message, not 
of an internet resource, IMO.
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 19:17:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:49 UTC