- From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:50:51 +0000
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Larry Masinter wrote: > The only value for authority that doesn't mean > anything in future versions is to leave the authority > out completely. It was pretty clear that previously, > the 'authority' component was planned for cross-package > references, and taken out because of security concerns. > > So I think if you want to "future proof" the possibility of > including an 'authority' or 'query components' in widget: > URIs, you could do something like > > The URI syntax is > > "widget:/<path>" I've noticed that some URI handling libraries don't cleanly handle the distinction between no-authority (scheme:/<path>) and an empty authority (scheme:///<path>). I've also seen the distinction cause implementer confusion (e.g. a recent discussion on the Jena mailing list about file:/// - http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/42474). I'm not sure what impact such issues might have on the above suggestion. #g -- > but possibly note that future versions might add an > authority component and a query component. > > "Those who create widget URIs must not include an > 'authority' or 'query' component. Those who validate > URIs must reject, not match, treat as invalid, > any URI which contains an authority or a query." > > "However, implementations which validate widget URIs > may note that future versions of this specification > are planned which add these fields, so may wish to > adjust." > > (Not discussing the "widget:" vs "thismessage:" question > because the new (but not yet demonstrated) utility > in "widget:" might have something to do with "authority") > > Larry > -- > http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 08:52:15 UTC