On Jul 24, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Sean Martin wrote:
Hi Alan,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/23/2006 11:51:35 PM:
Are you suggesting that programs parse URIs to see if they contain
the ASCII string "static"? If so, how would ones program know the
difference from any of these links?[1] I can see us heading towards
heated discussions about URI opacity ;-)
Don't they already parse URIs to extract the protocol to figure out
what to do at the network level? I don't buy the URI opacity
argument. If there is a contract between user and provider that the
URI is specified to have some extractable content in its form then so
be it. What I think is unacceptable is to have to guess what the URL
string means. But to "know" that it means something, because we have
agreed that it is so is another story.
1.
This is true, but in the same way as LSIDs requires new
infrastructure (a new protocol) to be deployed in clients and
proxies since two different kinds of behavior are required, one for
these new "static" URLs and one for everything else. As I posted
earlier, the infrastructure of the http system that works today is
exactly that part which is already used by the LSID resolution
scheme. What does not work today is the parts added by the LSID
scheme to compensate.
2.
If you don’t have the "contract" with the name, it is far more
complicated to deal with objects separated from their policies.
LSIDs only ever have one policy for the data bits they name which
makes the rules simple. You also don’t have anyone creating LSIDs
by accident.
There are two parts of the LSID scheme that I see. The stuff in 1,
having to do with resolving, and the stuff in 2. that have to do with
contract. I can't see how the former is inextricably tied with the
latter. I want to keep the insight of the latter, and dispense with
what *might* be unnecessary technical aspects of the former.
[1] http://www.google.com/search?
as_q=static&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google
+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_n
lo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=url&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
The query finds anything with static anywhere in the string, not urls
that *end* in the string ".static". In any case, what would the
conseqeuence of some accidental .static uris, if we in the community
specified what they should be fore. I can mint fake or wrong lsids
just as easily...
Best,
Alan
(enjoying the back and forth :)
