On 6/21/12 4:14 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen > <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> Hopefully, you can see how this becomes a major HttpRange-14 imbroglio >> vector. > Dragging httpRange-14 into this discussion seems like a bad idea. Its always a bad idea. acct: scheme URIs provide an option that keeps HttpRange-14 at bay re. names that resolve to description bearing resources. Its a more intuitive naming mechanism than an http: scheme URI. Of course, its more expensive, ultimately, due to http: scheme URI ubiquity and the state of http user agents re., the Web. > > I don't want to take 2616 as sacrosanct, or to say the draft acct: > registration is right. Maybe the answer is to change the webfinger > draft to be clearer regarding the intended semantics. Maybe, but when I encountered Webfinger (years ago) it was clear to me that it offered a solution to intuition challenges inherent in http: scheme URIs for broad audiences. The intuition problem always arises when introducing the notion of de-referencable http: scheme URIs as a denotation mechanism for real-world entities. The HttpRange-14 trap door opens whenever you attempt to explain this particular usage pattern to end-users and developers. > > (HTTPbis says more than 2616, and it is possible that the new text has > this function. But let's defer that question for now.) Yes. Links: 1. http://hueniverse.com/2009/08/making-the-case-for-a-new-acct-uri-scheme/ 2. http://hueniverse.com/discovery/ . > > Jonathan > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:45 UTC