W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Persistent caches -

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 16:28:57 -0400
Message-ID: <000e01bfc29a$07e14860$e9a55c8b@ridge.w3.org>
To: "James Tauber" <JTauber@bowstreet.com>, "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
Yes, a hierarchy of XML files on the web will of course work.
You might find though that as a scalable replicated system
the DNS has had many years of engineering put in! :)

Talk to Paul Mockapetris! In fact, discuss the whole thing in the
appropriate IETF fora if they still exist.

We can also do W3C stuff in this area if it is necessary.
Larry Masinter has proposed we cover the URI area -- we will
have an interest group at least for the time being according to plan A.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>; xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Saturday, May 20, 2000 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nem
es considered harmful?


>> FPIs now allow delegation mechanisms, so nothing prevents us
>> from setting up a bunch of FPI root servers that know how to delegate
down
>the > FPI tree.   All that's really needed is a simple server-to-server
>> protocol, a well-known port, and some commitment.
>
>My early FPI-resolution proposals envisaged a separate protocol but then it
>occurred to me that by achieving the delegation via SGML Open catalogs,
>catalogs could be referenced by URL so no dedicated protocol was needed.
>
>James
>
Received on Saturday, 20 May 2000 16:27:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC