Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

Eran, I am on your side. I have no particular plans to advocate for  
URIQA. We've exhausted the general argument. I'm just looking for  
particulars because I think they're interesting. If you don't want to  
offer any that's fine.

I thought my request was very clear. I did not want to feed the flames.


On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:00 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> The simple fact that most developers I work with have never heard of  
> HTTP OPTIONS is enough of an indication for me that asking them to  
> use MGET is not being practical. Yes, this argument doesn't fly with  
> many people on this list, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.  
> The idea behind my Link-based discovery proposal is that it offers  
> three methods to accomplish the association of a descriptor to a  
> resource.
> ---
> The decision whether URIQA and the M* methods are a good approach  
> isn't really just a matter of figuring out if they can be hacked  
> into most common httpd servers.
> If the URIQA authors are serious about getting adoption as a  
> standard, they should submit it for a standards process as well as  
> work with an organization like Apache to get it included in standard  
> distributions.
> It seems to me that the IETF would be the appropriate venue given  
> the fact this is an extension of the HTTP protocol. There are many  
> real deployment issues with introducing a new HTTP method and real  
> cost to the web. It is not my place to speculate on such  
> ramifications because HTTP is not my area of expertise.
> I would love to see Nokia submit URIQA as an I-D for review by the  
> HTTPbis working group. I am sure they can offer some valuable  
> insight. If this was done in the past, I would love if someone could  
> point me to it.
> Until URIQA is proposed as a standard (with some clarity regarding  
> its licensing terms which I could not find other than a copyright  
> statement at the bottom of the page), it would not be possible for  
> me to treat it as anything but an interesting idea. And while at it,  
> why not propose my own methods? Maybe LGET to get just the Link  
> headers...
> The empirical data I would like to see is where is URIQA deployed,  
> what's the scale of the deployment, what applications are using it,  
> etc.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Rees []
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:55 PM
>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> Cc:;; 
>> ;
>> Subject: Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.
>> On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>> I'll separate the two for my next draft and correct this.
>>> Adding URIQA support in many hosted environments or large corporate
>>> deployment isn't simple. It sets a pretty steep threshold on
>>> adoption [1]. I actually like the MGET approach a lot, but I can't
>>> sell it to 90% of my use cases. Consider me an extreme  
>>> pragmatists...
>>> EHL
>>> [1]
>> principal.html
>> I don't know about hosted environments and corporate deployments
>> generally, but one thing I like about Link: is that in Apache, at
>> least, it can be inserted using a directive in an .htaccess file.
>> It looks as if the Apache 'script' directive could be used to enable
>> URIQA, but it requires installation of a CGI script (or something
>> similar), raising the bar a teeny bit (perhaps beyond
>> what's practical in certain deployments). (Not that .htaccess is
>> always permitted to use the header directive anyhow.)
>> The problem is that I believe both Eran and Patrick, who say
>> conflicting things. We have talked a lot about technical merit and
>> generalities. Since the questions of practicality and simplicity are
>> empirical any hard data pro or con either side would be helpful,
>> especially as regards non-Apache platforms.
>> Jonathan

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:40:37 UTC