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

RE: The OpenURL - A Distinguished URI?

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:52:51 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A07747@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "'Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)'" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, www-tag@w3.org, uri@w3.org

Hello Tim,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] 
> Sent: 3 September 2003 18:37
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)'; www-tag@w3.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: The OpenURL - A Distinguished URI?
> Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > I don't see the "direct opposition" that you claim.
> I don't either.  It's been quite a while since I looked at the OpenURL 
> materials, but at the time it seemed like a sensible attempt to work out 
> a standard for querystrings that anybody could use.  While obviously 
> it's designed with HTTP URIs in mind, clearly nobody is suggesting that 
> the use of the standard become compulsory.  Those who assign URIs to 
> resources can choose to use this or not, and I don't think 
> there are any architectural problems raised.  -Tim

yes... I think we agree. I wasn't imagining folks as saying the use of
OpenURL was "complusory". I was seeing a potenial nuisance of: "http scheme
URI references that have a query component which looks like an OpenURL...
are OpenURL and necessarily refer whatever the OpenURL spec say they refers

We are saying... well only if the relevant assignment authority indicates
that as a matter of policy the query component conforms to the OpenURL spec
for some set of URI administered by that authority.

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 06:13:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC