- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:02:14 -0400
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
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 was > exactly the wrong thing to be doing. I'm trying now to reconcile that intent > 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" Jonathan
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2003 18:02:53 UTC