Re: "resolution mechanism"

Could TimBL please clarify what exactly he meant in the first place?

This is the original quote:
> >   SW: There is a tone in the IETF about trying to
> >   have a mechanism to resolve URNs.
> >   TBL: Yes, those people who favor URNs in the
> >   IETF claim that they are building a mechanism to
> >   resolve URNs. We have a working resolution
> >   mechanism; building a second one is in general a
> >   bad idea.

I may simply be extremely dense, but neither Ian's proposal (DNS) nor
Mark's proposal (HTTP) seems even remotely plausible to me as a general
answer.  

DNS solves only one small part of the problem, and I have a very hard
time believing in HTTP hegemony over the resolution of ftp: URIs, not to
mention the rest of the URI universe.

On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 15:53, Mark Baker wrote:
> Since nobody else has brought this up yet, I thought I'd mention that
> my interpretation of TimBL's comments in the minutes was that he
> was referring to HTTP GET, not DNS.
> 
> When you combine this;
> 
>  "2. Any place I can use a URI I can use any URI."
>    -- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/UI.html
> 
> with this;
> 
>  "Request-Line   = Method SP Request-URI SP HTTP-Version CRLF"
>    -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
> 
> you can see that HTTP methods, including GET, are suitable for resolving
> and manipulating all resources, not just those in the HTTP URI scheme.
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
> 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 17:10:02 UTC