- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:46:55 -0700
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
> Compare this with a corresponding http URI such as > http://filbert.example/nadia/woosel/yes > In this case, the chain of authority looks like: > 1. AWWW delegates to RFC3986 (because the whole thing is a URI) > 2. RFC3986 delegates authority for http:* URIs to the owner of the > http scheme OK so far 3. Owner of http scheme delegates authority for http://filbert.example/* URIs to the owner of filbert.example. No. The "Owner" of the http scheme is the IETF. The http URI scheme is defined in a Draft Standard for HTTP, following IETF process. The current definition doesn't delegate the "authority" for http://filbert.example/* URIs to the "owner" of filbert.example, it only allows for the HTTP protocol to be used to connect the HTTP server being run at the computer with the DNS entry for filbert.example. > 4. The owner of filbert.example delegates authority for http://filbert.example/* URIs to the Filbert specification. I'm not sure who you think the "owner" of "filbert.example" is. HTTP doesn't know anything about "owners". There are protocols, domain names, operators, and an infrastructure of DNS. The system doesn't allow delegation to a new "specification". What the operator of the service at filbert.example has as operational policy is, and should be, opaque to the agent interpreting "http://filbert.example/*" > There is one extra level of indirection in the http case, but the net > effect is nearly identical. Only in some hypothetical world. > For simplicity, but without loss of generality, I have made the syntax > of these two URIs look very similar. You're building up an imaginary system which cannot be put into practice. I could imagine a hypothetical world in which you could make the associations you're providing, but I don't think it's possible given the organizations involved, nor do I think that the hypothetical world you postulate is a better one than the one in which http URIs are used for the HTTP protocol, and if you don't want the HTTP protocol, you use a different URI scheme. I could respond to the rest, but it's mainly repetitive. Larry
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 19:47:38 UTC