Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?
"Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch> Mon, 10 February 1997 18:16 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa28794; 10 Feb 97 13:16 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17366; 10 Feb 97 13:15 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA14508 for uri-out; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:56:20 -0500
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA14503 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:56:12 -0500
Received: from josef.ifi.unizh.ch by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA29521 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Mon, 10 Feb 97 09:56:07 -0500
Received: from enoshima.ifi.unizh.ch by josef.ifi.unizh.ch with SMTP (PP) id <09744-0@josef.ifi.unizh.ch>; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:54:37 +0100
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:54:36 +0100
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: "Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?
In-Reply-To: <199702051734.MAA13509@lysithea.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95q.970210154838.245d-100000@enoshima>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Karen R. Sollins wrote: > If you are thinking of using unordered attributes somehow only limited > to relative URLs, since their scope can also be very large (I don't > see any particular limitation on them), scaling must be an issue for > them as well. But, as I said, perhaps I missed something here and > there are new ways to deal with the scaling problem that have just > passed me by. Scaling doesn't have to be that much of an issue because it is not the responsibility of the generic syntax to decide whether it can be solved in a particular case or not. The main question is whether there are cases that can deal with the scaling and where it makes sense to have attributes unordered, and whether these cases are frequent enough or important enough, and/or don't admit a reasonable alternative without unordered attributes to justify adding/keeping the unordered attributes in the generic syntax. Resolving unordered relative URLs is very easy for the browser (order both the attributes on the BASE and on the relative URL, then merge), and it is up to each scheme to decide whether and for what they want to use this feature, and how they can handle it. Regards, Martin.
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? John C Klensin
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Martin J. Duerst
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Karen R. Sollins
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Larry Masinter
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Christopher Walon Apple
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Chris Newman
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Karen R. Sollins
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Chris Newman
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Martin J. Duerst
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: a way out? Larry Masinter
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: a way out? Martin J. Duerst
- Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? Susan Hardy for Tim BL