Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Fri, 21 February 1997 19:23 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa17528; 21 Feb 97 14:23 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20456; 21 Feb 97 14:23 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA05655 for uri-out; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:32:09 -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 NAA05650 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 13:32:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mintaka.lcs.mit.edu by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA04727 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Fri, 21 Feb 97 13:32:05 -0500
Received: from beach.w3.org by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04959; 21 Feb 97 13:20 EST
Message-Id: <330DE74C.2C5265F9@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:19:56 -0600
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Organization: World Wide Web Consortium
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.18 i586)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: "Ron Daniel Jr." <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)
References: <3.0.32.19970221094252.0096fab0@acl.lanl.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
Ron Daniel Jr. wrote: > I'll admit that one *could* resolve current URLs in a location-independent > fashion. However, one cannot do it in a manner conformant to existing > standards. We can do anything if we change the definitions of our terms. Let's just agree on that and declare victory, huh? The bottom line is: we don't have to change all the addresses in all the documents in the world in order to increase the quality of service (availability, persistance, etc.) of resource access on the web. We just need to design and deploy some better resolution mechanisms (and we have to be especially careful to "follow the money" while we do it: business considerations like IPR, trademarks and brands will dominate technical considerations, I suspect). Moreover: a change in some of the basic syntactic rules (like going from slash to colon for hierarchical separators) has significant cost, with no increase in expressive power. You could make a human-factors argument that people traffic in colons more reliably than they traffic in slashes, and since faults at the human-machine interface have one of the most dramatic impacts on the reliability of the web, the change is merited. But I would want to see a significant body of emperical evidence. I'd be more receptive to a similar argument for a switch to case-preserving-but-case-insensitive from the contemporary case-sensisive specs. I can't tell you how many times URLs have been mistranscribed and then printed in a zillion newspapers! Thank goodness for redirects! Dan
- URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "pro… Daniel LaLiberte
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … touch
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Daniel LaLiberte
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … touch
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Daniel LaLiberte
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … touch
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Roy T. Fielding
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Dan Connolly
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Ron Daniel Jr.
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Dan Connolly
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … touch
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Ron Daniel Jr.
- Re: URI-protocol mapping Dan Connolly
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Dan Connolly
- Re: URI-protocol mapping Daniel LaLiberte
- Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new … Ron Daniel Jr.