W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2005

Re: [schemeProtocols-49] New draft of proposed "URI Schemes and Web Protocols" Finding

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:33:14 -0500
Message-Id: <ac713ffcaa9cebf77408b52183a56c70@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>

On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Well, let's try to get down to the issue rather than talk about
> the wording.
> I disagree, fairly profoundly, with "4.3.1 R7. Try any protocol
> for any resource", as stated.

I don't find it appealing either.

>  That's a Humpty-Dumpty rule, as if
> you were saying "In English, any word can mean whatever you want
> it to mean".
> I think the meaning of any URI that starts with "http://host/path" must
> be "use the HTTP protocol to connect to 'host' and send it 'path'",
> because that's the definition of the "http" URI scheme.

I think that's a little too strong. Here's a rule that I think I 
subscribe to:

  If you can access a resource via HTTP, then it has a name that starts 
with http:


  If it has a name that starts with http://..., then you may use HTTP to 
access it.

but not

  If it has a name that starts with http://..., then you must use HTTP 
to access it.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2005 18:33:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:10 UTC