RE: Opacity and mailto: in conflict

Hi Norm,

Some of the wording from the metaDataInURI-31 [1] draft finding may be
useful as replacement text for 2.2: The draft finding says:

"People and software making use of URIs assigned outside of their own
authority (i.e. observers) MUST NOT attempt to infer properties of the
referenced resource except as licensed by relevant normative specifications
or by URI assignment policies published by the relevant URI assignment
authority."

I think it captures what we want to say, although some may have a problem
with the way I wrote it.

Regards

Stuart
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: 22 September 2003 15:04
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Opacity and mailto: in conflict
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 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.
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> - -- 
> Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | To create a little flower is the labour of
> XML Standards Architect | ages.--Blake
> Web Tech. and Standards |
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 
> <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
> 
> 
> iD8DBQE/bwDuOyltUcwYWjsRAh04AJ4s1wKAGBkP8Rtu8lm7EKHB+9GFuwCcCqmy
> h1/1Cg7liS2siRJvwRjk2AE=
> =k1HS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 13:49:04 UTC