- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:03:09 -0700
- To: Rob Lanphier <robla@prognet.com>
- cc: www-talk@w3.org, uri@bunyip.com, confctrl@isi.edu
>I think this may be acceptable, but there's one other possible requirement
>I'd like to mention. It would be nice to have the ability to have relative
>URLs, so that, for example, the following scenario can play out (using ":"
>as a server side fragment identifier for the time being)
>
>C->S DESCRIBE rtsp://foo/db/moviebase?movie=twister RTSP/1.0 1
>
>S->C RTSP/1.0 200 1 OK
> Content-length: 178
> Content-type: application/sdp
>
> s= sample rtsp presentation
> r = rtsp://foo/db/moviebase?movie=twister /* aggregate URL*/
> m= audio 0 RTP/AVP 0
> r = :track=audio1 /* URL to control audio*/
> m=video 0 RTP?AVP 26
> r = :track=video1 /* URL to control video*/
>
>At this point, the client can easily discern that the audio track and the
>video track are indeed merely fragments of the same object on the server,
>and not separately controlled entities. I'm not sure how this would work
>with ";" parameters, since the relative behavior defined in 1808 is
>different than what I'd expect above (which is more akin to "#").
Those relative URLs would resolve to
rtsp://foo/db/:track=audio1
rtsp://foo/db/:track=video1
which is obviously not what you would want. Query info and relative
references do not mix in practice. In any case, using query info to
select a resource, as opposed to redirecting to the real resource URL,
is poor namespace management.
....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 1997 14:21:04 UTC