Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)

touch@isi.edu Thu, 20 February 1997 18:13 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa18034; 20 Feb 97 13:13 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17152; 20 Feb 97 13:13 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA07944 for uri-out; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:34:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA07937 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:34:21 -0500 (EST)
From: touch@isi.edu
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA23882 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Thu, 20 Feb 97 12:34:19 -0500
Received: from ash.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23) id <AA17602>; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:34:10 -0800
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:34:08 -0800
Posted-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:34:08 -0800
Message-Id: <199702201734.AA04288@ash.isi.edu>
Received: by ash.isi.edu (5.65c/4.0.3-6) id <AA04288>; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:34:08 -0800
To: touch@isi.edu, liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
X-Auto-Sig-Adder-By: faber@isi.edu
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

> From liberte@sdgmail.ncsa.uiuc.edu Thu Feb 20 09:22:52 1997
> 
> touch@isi.edu writes:
>  > > From: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>  > > 
>  > > ... The point is that there is a choice
>  > > that *can* be made in how to resolve any URI (not just http URLs).
>  > 
>  > Then it is no longer a URL, it is a URN (or perhaps URI, depending
>  > on how each is defined).
> 
> You can say it that way, but I was including http URLs, so you could
> equivalently say that URLs and URNs are indistinguishable from this
> perspective.

No. See below.

>  > However, it adding that 2-level binding to URLs removes any notion
>  > of the base, static case which has proven so useful in bootstrapping
>  > the Web protocols.
> 
> It doesn't.  In a chain of URI redirections, the last URI should be
> used as the base if the document itself (or its container) does not
> specify the base.  This is a clarification of the relative URL spec.
> Roy concurs.

Then we're just talking semantics.

I've been using URL as the last step in that chain.

In every indirection system, there is an arbitrarily
long chain of symbolic names, then one real name. The URL is
the 'real name', and uniquely specifies the protocol to be used,
or at least as I've been using URL.

> Specs can be in error by missing current practice, or as current

And current practice can equally be missing the basic theory.
The use of symbolic indirection in both languages and
communication has a long and distinguished history which is
directly applicable here. 

There is a need to restrict the last step in that chain, contrary
to popular belief. It avoids naming circularities, and locks down
the behavior of the protocol.

LISP avoided this, but it caused many problems when constants like "1"
were redefinable symbols, rather than base-cases.

Joe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu		    http://www.isi.edu/~touch/
ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM       http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/
USC / Research Assistant Prof.                http://www.isi.edu/lsam/