[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sorry for raising (even indirectly) the URI issues once again,
but some of you might be interested in commenting on the
"DRAFT: Architectural Principles of the World Wide Web" document
that the TAG has posted for review at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0813-archdoc
The editor has asked that only concrete proposals be
posted to the TAG list; general rants and casting
of aspersions might be better directed to xml-dev :~)
For what it's worth, I'd draw your attention to
a few bits that seemlikely to be controversial.
In section 1.1:
"In practice, people use both absolute URIs and absolute
URI references with fragment identifiers to identify Web
resources. Therefore, in this document, the TAG defines
the terms URI and URI reference as follows:
URI
In RFC 2396 terms, an absolute URI followed optionally by
"#" and a fragment identifier.
URI Reference
Same as the RFC 2396 definition.
The TAG intends to request a revision to RFC 2396 to
adopt this usage."
Section 1.2 might also intrigue a few of you:
"Some resources do not have URIs (and are not part of the Web).
For instance, if we consider every real number a resource;
clearly we can't give every real number a URI without collisions;
there are only denumerably many URIs."
Section 1.5.2.4 discusses the ever-popular issue of whether
URIs are case insenstive (a la HTTP) or case sensitive
(a la XML namespaces). It concludes:
"URI case sensitivity: People SHOULD NOT assume that two URIs
that differ only in case can be used interchangeably."
Finally, Section 1.6 on fragment identifiers seems like it might
raise a few eyebrows ....
"Design weakness: HTTP content negotiation and fragment identifiers
Coneg Fragment: Authors SHOULD NOT use HTTP content negotiation
for different media types that do not share the same fragment
identifier semantics."
|
