- From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:47:49 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Patrick, (this is basically a re-wording of the previous mail to fit in with your responses) Patrick Stickler writes: > > There are several arguements against that approach: > > (1) it violates the rights of web authorities to control their own URI > space I'm not sure what you mean here. AFAICS Web authorities are still free to do what they like with their web spaces. The agent won't get any guarantees that the RULE will work, just as it doesn't if the server chooses to implement MGET to mean e.g. 'multiple-get'. > (2) it violates the principle of URI opacity Is this a real-world problem? robots.txt violates the principal of URI opacity, but still adds lots of value to the web. > (3) it violates the freedom of URI schemes to define their own syntax How - can't we just restrict this to scheme to HTTP? > (4) it may not be possible to define any rule that will work for > arbitrary URIs So just do it for HTTP URIs. > (5) it is less convenient for implementors who don't want to posit > explicit, static descriptions > I suspect it's easier than deploying a whole new MGET infrastructure with proxes, caches and servers. Most webservers can direct requests to implementations based on e.g. suffixes. Apache can do it based on regex matches over the URI. > (I could go on, but I think the above is sufficient ;-) > Please do - I'm haven't seen the killer reason yet. Many thanks, Phil
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:49:04 UTC