- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 11:44:08 -0700
- To: WWW TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Introduction: I like the sentence labeled "Open" Limits: "This document does not address *architectural* design goals" 1. Identifiers Last para, labeled Open and beginning "The URI Specificaation..." can be dropped, it adds no value. 1.1 URI schemes This numbered list needs to be thrown out and redone. Some specific comments. - last sentence of 2nd para (about scheme == prefix) should move to top. - list item 1. I prefer Roy's formulation. But doesn't it apply to any URI, not just HTTP URIs? - list items 2 and 4 are talking about the same thing One way to reorg this section: Call it "properties of URIs" and enumerate some, highlighting that some of them are scheme-dependent. 1.1.1 Social Expectations... - lose first sentence, it adds nothing - call out a framed architectural principle along the lines of "design and maintain your URI space with a view to persistence!" 1.2 2nd open issue - my atttempt was to reformulate the 1st framed principle under 1.... but maybe it works better here. 1.3 list item 3, should say *optional* fragment identifier Might want to add a note after the trailing principle in this section giving official names for 1-3 in the list above. 1.4 1st sentence, does ending with a fragment imply that the URI can be derferenced?
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 14:44:01 UTC