- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:09:59 +0200
- To: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "'Eran Hammer-Lahav'" <eran@hueniverse.com>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "'URI'" <uri@w3.org>
hello.
> I don't think a URI scheme has to do anything with transportation
> protocol.
the URI scheme specifies the protocol that has to be used the resource.
how can that have nothing to do with the protocol?
> No matter what URI you use, after de-reference, you get a
> *representation*, which is a different thing from the *resource* that
> the URI denotes. And a representation must have a content type,
> regardless how you retrieved it.
that's HTTP and HTTPS, but probably not many other protocols. if you use
mailto: or tel: or fax: or sms:, then there are other modes of
interaction with the identified resource, and for those interactions
there is no concept of a media type. and even for ftp:, there is no
media type info; you can guess, but there is no protocol mechanism that
supports it. so it really seems to me you're focusing on HTTP URIs which
is fine; i just wanted to find out.
cheers,
erik wilde tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
dret@berkeley.edu - http://dret.net/netdret
UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)
Received on Saturday, 27 June 2009 21:11:28 UTC