Re: [apps-discuss] the URI definition model (was: Fun with URLs and regex)

Sam Ruby <> Thu, 29 January 2015 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62351A1AB8 for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:49:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BlAkoKIliLjw for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:49:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360F81A00D4 for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:49:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([] helo=rubix) by cdptpa-oedge03 (envelope-from <>) (ecelerity r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 4F/4F-17738-BF6CAC45; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 23:49:16 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: rubys) by rubix (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 755721401E4; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:49:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:49:14 -0500
From: Sam Ruby <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Kerwin <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] the URI definition model (was: Fun with URLs and regex)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 23:49:18 -0000

On 01/29/2015 04:55 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> Having (at least in my mind, and in local incomplete drafts) resolved
> the issue of "c|/", and having some way forward for UNC, the remaining
> fuzzy parts are the query and fragment. Nobody uses queries, so there's
> no point adding them in. Fragments are currently out, because I was
> advised early on to leave them out. The fuzziness is how to do it while
> remaining compatible with both the document and definition models.

Permit me to provide a use case for both queries and fragments?

In a recent discussion with Tim Berners-Lee, he described a use case for 
file: URIs, namely developing an HTML application locally (using only 
relative references), and being able to push that code to a server and 
have it "just work" when served over HTTP.

HTML applications may include stylesheets and scripts.  Scripts, when 
running, may do interesting things based on the query and fragment.  The 
fragment, in particular, is routinely (ab)used by so-called "Single Page 

- Sam Ruby