RE: [metaDataInURI-31]: Initial draft finding for public review/ comme nt.


This isn't a techical response, but an intuition that 
the more a URI is treated as content, the more worms 
will appear in the can.  Metadata is content; URIs 
should identify content, not carry it.

Is it possible to just label this as "bad practice" and 
let the risk fall on the implementor?


From: Norman Walsh []

Handed a random URI about which you know nothing, my position is that
it is opaque and you've got no business peeking inside it trying to
guess stuff.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 15:26:08 UTC