- From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:32:08 -0700
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
My definition of host comes from RFC 2616. What I am looking for is a way to express a web concept for the purpose of describing its attributes as a URI. It needs to be a URI because the frameworks we use to describe things on the web are all limited to describing resources identified with URI. The only option I would like to rule out is to use a reserved HTTP URI for this purpose. I am open to pretty much all other options, if they correctly convey the idea of "host", "domain", etc. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:46 PM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: Dan Connolly; apps-discuss@ietf.org; www-tag@w3.org; URI > Subject: Re: URI for abstract concepts (domain, host, origin, site, > etc.) > > On 2009/06/26 12:18, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > > > In my case, the "resource" is the concept of a host, which is the > combination of a domain name, port number, and protocol used on that > port. I want to be able to describe this host by saying, "this is how > you transform any HTTP URI that belongs to this host to the URI of its > metadata". There are plenty of ways to express this statement but so > far I don't have a good way to express the subject of this statement - > the host. > > > > Of course, I can come up with something like this: > > > > http://abstract.example.net/host/example.com:80:http > > > > And simply include in the protocol that the > http://abstract.example.net/host/ prefix is a special case exception. > But while such solutions (a URI version of a well-known location) might > be acceptable for HTTP servers due to the complexity and cost of > deploying changes to the infrastructure (such as a new HTTP method), > they are less acceptable for URIs which can be easily extended with > nothing more than a couple pages of spec... > > > > It is almost as easy to register a new URI scheme or URN namespace as > it is for me to buy and maintain a new domain name. But I think in this > case, the reserved domain name is a lot more offensive to web > architecture than a new URI scheme or some other URI-based solution. > > > > I am also happy to make this as specific as needed for my super > special use case and mint a new host: URI scheme. > > This seems to indicate that 'host' is just one kind or type of thing. > There are tons and tons of other such things. Apples, oranges, > blueberries, just to start with. The idea that we need a new URI scheme > for every kind of data or thing that we want to talk about seems highly > unscalable. Also, your concept of 'host' may be slightly different from > what somebody else would think a 'host' is or has to be. Again, > defining > a 'host:' URI scheme very much looks like a non-starter. I don't > exactly > understand what you think your problem is, but I think it's a mistake > to > assume that because you have something that you can denote with almost > the same information as available in an HTTP URI (that wouldn't be true > for apples and oranges), it should have a scheme. > > Regards, Martin. > > -- > #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 15:33:01 UTC