- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:04:58 PST
- To: Fabio Vitali <fabio@cs.unibo.it>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
# Maybe what I said is just stupid, and David hints that it has already been # discussed before, I probably missed or forgot that. But the prohibition to # interpret URLs is not complied to neither for locations (after #), nor for # parameters (after ?). So this would be a (highly justifiable) case for # another special decoration. Tough. I've been in the middle of the process of standardization of URLs for nearly five years now, and I can assure you that "Tough" is an understatement. Your "highly justifiable" is unjustified. The only justification you've given is that you think this will optimize the protocol involved in some (unspecified) versioning operations. On the other hand, the arguments against using any standard syntactic extension to URLs are pretty strong. As I see it, if you really examine the situations wher eyou think you're unnecessarily requiring an additional HTTP request, the additional request is necessary, since you'll actually need more information about the resource than just the URL of the root. # I can just see the comparisons and benchmarks of servers and clients on Byte. # This is a GOOD excuse for information racism. Useless hyperbole. Please desist. Regards, Larry
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 1997 13:04:26 UTC