- From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:17:06 +0100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Quoting Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>: > If the issue here is that Web services needs to license a client to > peek into an identifier (which seems to be the case, otherwise why > would you standardize it?), I would recommend that they define a new > URI scheme, say, "epr". This would at least be consistent with the > webarch good practice item[4] which states; > > "Agents making use of URIs SHOULD NOT attempt to infer properties of the > referenced resource except as specified by relevant specifications." > > But on the other hand, I don't see why this licensing is required, and > therefore why a relatively opaque http URI wouldn't suffice. Even in the case of such "licensing", and ignoring the fact that this amounts to building mini-webs that aren't fully built into the web, would they still be unable to use URIs, or even disadvantaged by it. -- Jon Hanna <http://www.hackcraft.net/> "I don't like to LOOK out of the windows even - there are so many of those creeping women, and they creep so fast." - Charlotte Perkins Gilman, _The Yellow Wallpaper_
Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 15:17:08 UTC