Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Thu, 10 May 2012 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C3911E808D for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.933
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.334, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ei0BiUonOC28 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcagg.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B8721F86DD for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C832AC140; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gbiv.com; h=subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=gbiv.com; b=TCybEHR5voxIg8EI +bJ6QMm6m1mnCe0tRQ9nO44r2WgaKbXwFUZIzKjQaBEAs7J1XAC7RNFxQZ/X7rQy 5tTBNgatNpgCS5Rg7UyHRNt6Slh2HQYIi409F+0D6TQ98f7/mas2axaXwklyuIbt 5TFGvk1fFer9eSu6o2G4EK8eAe0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=lv/p1GDFcE0fGCasFdmgT2bd3O8=; b=y+0+ptBjVHBnu8S5VPxx5fU3MxxS bplxrN/nqwzQHs6P0QdhOCOJw2AU6LlVwcKhiKV++BPnITrRHUZ7tU2W3a2bmYLU ow0DD+ElYYI3lU5lbch4hHA5B1A4EK++E/VkSE9iRZjNhdRtPbPwcSwmjYpUrGe0 ShIi8GoggHfbANQ=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E5862AC114; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMA_aRticFB+G9m-4K05uy9wrFu4OTzq1dZYp=MTmQL9tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:44:21 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E660409-CFC3-4491-923C-070939F72B17@gbiv.com>
References: <4F99665D.8060404@ericsson.com> <CA+9kkMAvr6eXHzB_HMVgGqBHpUpeuh-mrWRP6-Ap0w3SZLvV-Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FA13522.6020103@ericsson.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AD547DE@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4FA8EB2E.8070609@ericsson.com> <4FA8F231.90407@gmx.de> <CA+9kkMCOatpOO2P5c0PxSt=CKfUCG2pOaKYNkP-e-80ianps1Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FA95C23.3030802@gmx.de> <CA+9kkMBzae-tcMSjidwLF5kD5_FD1soNDGOgWA+jLLH0QYVLfA@mail.gmail.com> <F83F17D2-8E61-4F43-A183-8EC457291A59@gbiv.com> <4FA9CB84.8030609@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <2591522F-75D2-4AE7-A4F9-02528B91433D@gbiv.com> <CA+9kkMA_aRticFB+G9m-4K05uy9wrFu4OTzq1dZYp=MTmQL9tQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 17:49:35 -0000

On May 9, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
> wrote, quoting Graham Klyne:
> 
>>>   Note that this specification, like any URI scheme specification, does
>>>   not define syntax or meaning of a fragment identifier (see [STD66]),
>>>   because these depend on the type of a retrieved representation.  In
>>>   the currently known usage scenarios, a 'mailto' URI cannot be used to
>>>   retrieve such representations.  Therefore, fragment identifiers are
>>>   meaningless, SHOULD NOT be used on 'mailto' URIs, and SHOULD be
>>>   ignored upon resolution.  The character "#" in <hfvalue>s MUST be
>>>   escaped as %23.
>>> 
>>> This seems to be fully in line with the discussion up to here, including Roy's comment above, but if anybody thinks it needs to be changed, please send some new proposed wording.
>> 
>> The second to last sentence is wrong.  That spec cannot make
>> normative requirements about something that is out of scope;
>> any fragment is completely outside the scope of a URI scheme
>> specification.  Just remove the "Therefore, ... resolution."
>> sentence -- it serves no useful purpose.
>> 
>> ....Roy
>> 
> 
> Would you still object if it simply said "Therefor fragment
> identifiers are meaningless in current email contexts."?  I think this
> remains useful and it eliminates the normative language.

I wouldn't object, but I personally don't like talking about
"current contexts" in a spec that will live for decades.
I don't see why it matters -- if it is meaningless, nobody
will use them; if they use them, they won't be meaningless.

....Roy