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

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

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:11:40 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <87llv56l9v.fsf@nwalsh.com>

Hash: SHA1

/ "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com> was heard to say:
|> -----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.
| <snip/>
|> | 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?

I suppose one can reasonably know the protocol and for some protocols
additional information about the URI, but I don't think any of these
things really counts as metadata in any significant way.

In fact, I think this could be described as a syntactic understanding
of the URI as opposed to any sort of semantic understanding.

                                        Be seeing you,

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | Anything more than the truth would be too
XML Standards Architect | much.--Robert Frost
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 13:12:13 UTC

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