- From: David Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:03:35 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 5:56 PM -0700 3/5/97, Dave Hollander wrote: >> At 12:33 PM 3/4/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote: >> >4.2.a Should we formalize at all the concept of a base address? >> >> Yes, it's generally useful for a variety of reasons, e.g. replication >> support, it's a real pity that HTML BASE is in general not better >> defined and understood. > >True. It is a useful concept to formally define. > >However, if we do, we need to establish what is the resolution >between discrepency between implied-resource-name (resource name used >to reach this resource) and the "base" value. If you specify a "Base" (locsc) you deep-six any other logic for determining the base. No problem. >While we are at it, should we also build in the ability to have the >document its prefered resource name? The one of many paths to that >resource that is prefered to be remembered? No. If people give something more than one name, they are responsible for making them all work. Otherwise we intorduce pointless complexity. > >>4.2.c Should we formalize the concept of the implied location source? > >Is this the same as: resource name used to reach this resource ? >If so, we do need the concept to express priority policy re expressed >location source. I don't see that we need anything other than relative URL rules for this -- either relative to the retrieval-source of the document, or whatever BASE was specified. This keeps it simple, and re-uses Web semantics where they make a lot of sense. -- David _________________________________________ David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu \ david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science \ Sr. Analyst http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ \ Dynamic Diagrams --------------------------------------------\ http://dynamicDiagrams.com/ MAPA: mapping for the WWW \__________________________
Received on Monday, 10 March 1997 13:02:19 UTC