- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:02:12 -0500
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hi Noah, On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 07:00:30PM -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Mark Baker proposes: > > > What about this as a replacement? > > > > "If an agent encounters an unknown URI scheme, it is > > unable to dereference the URI to retrieve a > > representation. Media types, even unrecognized ones, > > are encountered *after* a representation has been > > retrieved. This provides the agent the opportunity to > > save the representation to disk, to ask the user (if > > any) to choose an application to process the > > representation, or in general, simply to use > > information available in the representation to make > > forward progress." > > > > Mark > > Do you see this as consistent with [1]: > > "Although many URI schemes are named after protocols, this does not imply > that use of such a URI will result in access to the resource via the named > protocol. Even when an agent uses a URI to retrieve a representation, that > access might be through gateways, proxies, caches, and name resolution > services that are independent of the protocol associated with the scheme > name, and the resolution of some URIs may require the use of more than one > protocol (e.g., both DNS and HTTP are typically used to access an "http" > URI's origin server when a representation isn't found in a local cache)."? Slightly inconsistent, yes. My paragraph doesn't accomodate the possibility that the agent can delegate dereferencing. If it did, I think that would address the inconsistency that I believe you're referring to; the agent itself may not support FTP/ftp:, but it could ask a trusted HTTP proxy to provide that service, e.g. GET ftp://example.org/foo/bar.zip HTTP/1.1 > FWIW, I find the paragraph quoted immediately above a bit vague. Is it or > is it not OK per WebArch for me to implement the http: scheme using the > FTP transport protocol? The above seems to imply: sort of yes, insofar > as you could imagine your FTP store as some sort of repository for > representations of resources that happened to be named with the http > scheme, but sort of no insofar as there is a specific non-FTP "protocol > associated with the [http] scheme name". So, I think the arch document > might benefit from a little clarification in this area. I agree, but I expect we'd quickly hit the httpRange-14 impass. I also agree that your other questions should be answered in the document as well. I have my own views on all of them; I'll save them for later. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 23:00:43 UTC