- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:19:10 -0700
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1cb725390807161819g7925c6c0p8bcfe0a74dd1a06d@mail.gmail.com>
Let me make a concrete proposal. Could the W3C (the TAG? Or someone else?) issue a recommendation to the effect that URIs of the following form are special: http://xri.example.org/SOMETHING:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+phone<http://xri.example.org/xri:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+phone> It would be permissable for an application detecting a URI of that form to interpret the URI *either* according to the HTTP specification *or* according to some other specification attached to the word SOMETHING. SOMETHING's should probably be managed in a registry but I don't know whether to use the domain name registry or something else. For the sake of continuing, let's presume the domain name registry: http://xri.example.org/uri.xri.org:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+phone<http://xri.example.org/xri:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+phone> It might be a best practice that "http://xri.org/" have a prominent link to documentation of how the URI is used. Once the W3C had issued such a recommendation, the chances of someone minting these URIs by accident would drop (even below the really tiny current chance). I see a use-case that's been bugging me for years; http://my.vital.service.com/failover_uri:/path/failover_uris=URI2+URI3 (I'd have to think more about how exactly the escaping works to get the three URIs embedded) Today's HTTP clients would contact me with the full URI and I'd discard URI2 and URI3. But a smart HTTP client might try URI2 if it couldn't contact my.vital.service.com. Paul Prescod
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 01:19:54 UTC