W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2002

Re: draft-kindberg-tag-uri

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 29 Oct 2002 16:47:29 -0600
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, timothy@hpl.hp.com, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1035931650.2320.8330.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 13:35, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 
> The IESG is to publish draft-kindberg-tag-uri as an informational RFC 
> shortly. Comments on the draft is to be sent to me personally and the 
> authors.

As I wrote to Sandro earlier...

I certainly don't agree with:

"But there are
   drawbacks to URLs-as-identifiers:

   1) Software might try to dereference a URL-as-identifier, even though
      there is no resource at the "location"."

(a) there's always a resource there; there might not be a representation
available. But (b) if there isn't a representation available, there
should be.

i.e. names/identifiers take on meaning by use in protocols.
I don't see much value for making up names without some
sense of how they'll take on meaning.

And I don't see why the existing URI schemes don't work
just fine for naming stuff.

FYI, the W3C TAG has been doing work in this area; it's
not finished, but a stake in the ground is:

"Describe resources: Owners of important resources (for example,
Internet protocol parameters) SHOULD make available representations that
describe the nature and purpose of those resources."
  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webarch-20020830/

>     Regards, Patrik
>     Area Director, Applications Area, IETF
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 17:47:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:54 UTC