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