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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ MDaconta@aol.com was heard to say:
[...]
| But handed a URI with either a known URI scheme (like <A HREF="mailto:)">mailto:)</A> or
| from a known organization (based on a domain name), It is appropriate to
| peek into the URL according to either the standards of the scheme or 
| standards 
| of the sending organization.

I think the best you could say is that it "may" be appropriate.
Sometimes. For some agents. I don't know of any places that provide
such guarantees on a domain-wide basis.

| IMO, both areas of further URI standardization (scheme, domain) should be 
| encouraged.

And I'm inclined to say it should be discouraged. It isn't
interoperable, and significantly it won't scale (pick two or three
bits of metadata and you can probably devise a scheme that'll work.
Now pick two or three thousand bits...).

It adds complexity where it can be removed.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | A life, admirable at first sight, may have
XML Standards Architect | cost so much in imposed liabilities, chores
Web Tech. and Standards | and self-abasement, that, brilliant though it
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | appears, it cannot be considered other than a
                        | failure. Another, which seems to have
                        | misfired, is in reality a triumphant success,
                        | because it has cost so little.--Henry De
                        | Montherlant
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE/DcVrOyltUcwYWjsRAjUIAKCAspe9napG3ZFQHSsBz1kmaw3j4gCcDSbN
bMMsPCPZsFqQIDAl5yCS69I=
=dl70
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 15:59:01 UTC