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

Re: [schemeProtocols-49] New issue on relationship of URI schemes to protocols and operations

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:30:26 +0100
Message-ID: <1904872417.20050316193026@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org

On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 7:10:13 PM, Larry wrote:

LM> I'm not sure how much you're reading into the description.
LM> The "access method" for "cid:" and "mid:" are well understood
LM> outside of any particular context, it's only that the method
LM> is only invokable in some contexts. I think they'd work inside
LM> any number of contexts, though.

LM> And the interpretation of "data:" doesn't depend at all
LM> on the context.

Yes, it doesn't depend on the context. It doesn't have a network
protocol associated with it, either, which was why I suggested it as an

LM> I think the text you're quoting was removed from the updated
LM> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guideli
LM> nes-03.txt

LM> and replaced with more general advice for "2.3 Well-Defined"

LM>    While URIs may or may not be useful as locators in practice, a URI
LM>    scheme definition itself should be clear as to how it is expected to
LM>    function.  Schemes that are not intended to be used as locators
LM>    should still describe how the resource indicated can be identified by
LM>    software that obtains a URI of that scheme.

LM> Larry

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 18:30:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:08 UTC