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

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

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:31:20 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A07628@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@sun.com] 
> Sent: 10 July 2003 20:12
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [metaDataInURI-31]: Initial draft finding for 
> public review/comme nt.

> | But before you can even broach that you have to decide on whether URIs 
> | should
> | be opaque or not. That is where consensus must first be guaged.
> 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.

So I can agree with that. 

No guessing... at most I'd only want to know what the relevant authoritative
spec(s) (preferably a standards) allowed me to know.

In terms of knowing nothing... does that means not knowing RFC2396? Not
knowing the particular scheme in question?

What if I do know 2396(bis) and the scheme in question?

>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm


Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 12:32:21 UTC

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