W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Invalid JAR URIs

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:14:45 +0200
Message-ID: <197971612845.20030703111445@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>

On Thursday, July 3, 2003, 10:22:14 AM, Roy wrote:


>>> One issue is that if the jar contained say an xml file one might want
>>> to point to a fragment of that file
>>> http://www.foo.com/bar/baz.jar#jar(/COM/foo/Quux.xml#foo)

RTF> There is no situation or context in which it is appropriate for
RTF> balanced parentheses to appear as a suggested URI syntax.

I should have said URI reference, perhps, but I understood that URI
now includes URI reference.

Balanced parentheses are the foundation of the XPointer framework
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/

so it semed that, for fragment schemes, they were the correct choice.

RTF> It is the wrong choice in all circumstances.

Please elaborate, since you seem to be saying that several W3C Recs
are wrong.

RTF> Since this example is an http URI, it can easily be

RTF>     http://www.foo.com/bar/baz.jar/COM/foo/Quux.xml#foo

RTF> HTTP servers do not contain files.

What would the semantics of that be? It seems to request that one
particular resource be served (which happens to be part of a jar
file) thus, just that one file would be extracted and returned.

That would not work. The use case here is to retrieve the entire jar
and to then point to the class to be executed. Execution requires the
other files in the jar, too. So its more like a fragment.

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 05:15:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:59 UTC