Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?
"Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu> Wed, 05 February 1997 17:59 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa28439; 5 Feb 97 12:59 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17651; 5 Feb 97 12:59 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA20404 for uri-out; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:34:39 -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 MAA20395 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:34:32 -0500
Received: from lysithea.lcs.mit.edu by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA07517 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Wed, 5 Feb 97 12:34:31 -0500
Received: (from sollins@localhost) by lysithea.lcs.mit.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA13509; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:34:22 -0500
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 12:34:22 -0500
Message-Id: <199702051734.MAA13509@lysithea.lcs.mit.edu>
From: "Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>
To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <97Feb3.191952pdt."241"@palimpsest.parc.xerox.com> (message from Larry Masinter on Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:19:52 PST)
Subject: Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
CC: uri@bunyip.com Sender: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:19:52 PST x.500 doesn't have the equivalent of "relative URLs", does it? I think this is a separate issue from unordered vs. ordered attributes. X.500 only supports them ordered, although I believe it permits wildcards or queries for elements in a path, leading to searches. In other words, if a name is {country=us, state=ma, org=mit, dept=?, person=sollins) it would search all the departments for "person=sollins". Even this level of flexibility may not scale or generalize well (i.e. think about what would happen if there were several "?" in this list), and its been long enough that I'd have to go back and check on even this level of detail. But, originally, before there was x.500, but only proposals, the leading candidate was for unordered attributes of this sort. It simply doesn't scale at all, unless you know some algorithm that I don't. But, since we are talking about URLs perhaps we should be talking about X.400, not X.500 anyway, and I don't know the history there. It also does NOT support unordered attributes, and the syntax is also ordered attributes as with X.500. (But, it is worth noting that the syntaxes are NOT identical; they are specified separately.) Now, I am not one to suggest that CCITT and ISO should be our role models, but we should learn from their experiences where we can. 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. Karen
- 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