- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:13:42 +0100
- To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hi Norm, > -----Original Message----- > From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@sun.com] > Sent: 11 July 2003 21:01 > To: www-tag@w3.org <snip/> > Yes, it would be nice to get httpRange14 sorted. I think this > also has bearing on abstractComponentRefs-37. One of the > questions that has to be addressed is whether or not a URI > that's intended to identify abstract components can in some > sense be known to be more than just a random URI. Yes (ie. yes that's a question that feels like it needs an answer). > | [RFC2368 mailto scheme] > | "The mailto URL scheme is used to designate the Internet mailing > | address of an individual or service." > > So, in looking at this utterance and the others, I think I > could apply the principle of being conservative in what you > send and liberal about what you receive (I've forgotten the > pithy name for that principle, if it has one). I thinks it's the 'robutsness principle'. > If you construct a mailto: URI, make sure it identifies an > internet mailing address. If you receive a mailto: URI, do > not assume that it identifies an internet mailing address. That has some appeal... I'd be interested in Mark Bakers response to the *first* of clause. Elsewhere in this thread he's asserted (maybe for example or maybe for real) that he use (or could use) mailto:distobj@acm.org to identify himself (ie. the person) - he's also made similar statements about http://www.markbaker.ca/ (that it identifies Mark the person, not his web site or a particular page on his website). > I know that some folks want to make assertions about things > based on the scheme of the URI used to identify them (hence > httpRange-14), but I remain unconvinced that such axiomatic > assertions are a good idea. Personnally, I can live with the wholly opaque position - it has the hugh advantage of being very uniform. Picking a URI apart into its 2396(bis) components puts us at the top of a slippery slope. Client software making distinctions based on the value of particular components takes us down that slope. Maybe one can take a couple of careful steps down the slope... maybe its much safer just to stay at the top. > | ...and of course the infamous... > | > | [RFC2616 http scheme] > | "3.2.2 http URL > | > | The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the HTTP > | protocol." > > You know, RFC2616 is about the http *protocol*. Well, it also serves as the current registration document for the HTTP URI scheme. > That protocol > clearly uses (syntactic) information that it derives from > http: scheme URIs to locate network resources. > > It's hair splitting, I know, but one might argue that other > specifications are free to use http scheme URIs in other > ways. For example, to identify cars or people. Indeed... and there are recent REC's like SOAP1.2 [1,2] that do just that kind of thing - using URI's to name abstract features and properties. I was part of the WG when we started doing his. We experimented with plain URIs and with Qnames, (for compactness) but came back to plain URIs (ie.without fragments). > > Be seeing you, Stuart -- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/#featurereq [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#soapfeatspec
Received on Monday, 14 July 2003 07:58:05 UTC