"URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET"

Regarding "Myth: URIs cannot be longer than 256 characters" -- I suggest removing this block.  It seems to imply that URI is the same as a URL with http: scheme, and talks about server limitations only.  Many uses of URI do not require a server at all, and client limitations still exist with respect to the narrow subset of URIs that serve as http: URLs.  In particular, mobile devices such as PDAs and cellphones, which are widely deployed and used, have all sorts of differing restrictions on length of http: URLs.  It is wise to assume that such arbitrary limitations will exist in widely-deployed clients for as long as new devices implement connections to the web.  It's fine to say that there SHOULD NOT be any limitation on length of URLs, but it would be wrong, IMO for tag to give estimates or guesses about what limitations exist in reality.
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
Sent: Mon 7/8/2002 2:05 PM 
To: www-tag@w3.org 
Cc: 
Subject: Summary of TAG activity from 9 June to 2 July 2002




 Dear www-tag,
 
 This is a summary of the TAG's activity from 9 Jun 2002
 (date of the previous summary [1]) to 2 July 2002.
 
 The TAG had four teleconferences during this period; summaries of
 those meetings are linked from the TAG home page [2].
 
 During the current period, the TAG has primarily:
 
 1) Published the following:
 
     - "URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET":
       http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/get7
 
     --------
     Abstract
 
     An important principle of Web architecture is that all
     important resources be identifiable by URI. This finding
     discusses the importance of using GET for safe operations on
     the Web, so that those resources may be identified by a
     URI. The finding also discusses some practical limitations to
     this general principle.
     --------
 
     The TAG and XMLP Working Group worked closely on questions of
     the use of GET in SOAP 1.2. Discussions between the TAG and the
     Web Services Activity are continuing on other interoperability
     questions. The TAG appreciates the efforts of all involved in
     these discussions.
 
 2) Discussed the following draft findings:
 
     - Qnames as Identifiers (issue qnameAsId-18)
       http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids
 
     - Consistency of Formatting Property Names, Values, and
       Semantics
       http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/formatting-properties
 
 3) Accepted the following new issues:
 
     - augmentedInfoset-22 : Infoset augmentation outside of the
       Post Schema Validation Infoset?
       http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#augmentedInfoset-22
 
     - xlinkScope-23 : What is the scope of using XLink?
       http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xlinkScope-23
 
 4) Reached a decision on the following issues:
 
     - charmodReview-17 : Request to review "Character Model for the
       Web" Last Call document
       http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#charmodReview-17
 
       Comments sent to the I18N WG:
       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jun/0020
 
 5) Architecture Document
 
     The TAG requested review on www-tag of an early draft of the
     Architecture Document. This draft represents substantial input
     from TAG participants, but does not yet represent consensus.
 
     http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0701-intro
 
 For Tim Berners-Lee, TAG Chair
 Ian Jacobs
 
 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jun/0071
 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/#about
 
 
 --
 Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
 Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 01:15:09 UTC