Re: Second Draft of summary of TAG issue abstractComponentRefs-37

Williams, Stuart wrote:

> Hi David,
> I have an outstanding TAG action [1] to draft a finding to resolve
> metadataInURI-31 [2]. I'm conscious this has been languishing for a while
> and I need to make some progress - but I believe that I'm likely lift the
> lid of the URI opacity tin. Anyway, when we accepted issue-31 [3] it was
> with the express intent that saying that the encoding of metadata in URI
> exactly the wrong thing to be doing. I'm trying now to reconcile that
> with the third requirement below:
> > 3. It should be possible to extract the type information from the URI
> These two seem at odds. Any thoughts?

Yup, they are at odds. I'd say that:

 URIs should be considered opaque by processes that assign URIs to
resources. URIs should only be parsed by processes that retrieve
representations of resources identified by a particular URI a.k.a. the
process of "URI resolution"


Received on Saturday, 26 April 2003 18:02:53 UTC