- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:08:13 -0500
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 09:02, Norman Walsh wrote: > In section 2.2, URI Opacity, we say: > > Although it is tempting to guess at the nature of a resource by > inspection of a URI that identifies it, this is not licensed by > specifications; this is called URI opacity. > > Then later on we say > > mailto URIs identify mailboxes; ftp URIs identify ftp files and > directories; etc. > > It seems to me that these two statements are in conflict. Either you > aren't allowed to guess the nature of a resource from its URI, or you > are: it can't be both ways. You aren't allowed to guess the nature of a resource from (one of) its URI(s) *alone*. You _are_ allowed to take the URI plus published policies and learn things about the nature of the resource that way. Yes, the text needs improvement. Words fail me just now. hmm... FWIW, I have found some words on a topic that's similar, though not quite the same... http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSpaceSquatting -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 11:08:14 UTC