> > > RFC 3986 (URI generic syntax) says that "http:" is a URI scheme
> > > not a protocol. Just because it says "http" people make all
> > > kinds of assumptions about type of use, persistence,
> > > resolvability, etc.
> > And RFC 2616 (Hypertext transfer protocol) says:
> > "The HTTP protocol is a request/response protocol. A client sends
> > a request to the server in the form of a request method, URI, and
> > protocol version, followed by a MIME-like message containing
> > request modifiers, client information, and possible body content
> > over a connection with a server."
> > So what you are saying is that it's ok to use the URI for the
> > hypertext transfer protocol in a way that ignores RFC 2616. I'm
> > just not sure how functional that is, in the grand scheme of
> > things.
> You missed the whole point that URIs, specified by RFC 3986, are
> just tokens that are divorced from protocols, like RFC 2616, but
> often work in conjunction with them to retrieve a representation of
> the resource defined by the URI scheme. It is up to the protocol
> to decide which URI schemes that it will accept.
But if Karen missed that point, and I also miss that point, and a
whole bunch of the other smart people on this list have all missed
this point, then there surely comes a stage in the argument where we
have to pragmatically accept that the point has missed. If people on
CODE4LIB don't get this, then the general population is not going to,
I think the W3C are so infatuated (justifiably) with the success of
HTTP that they've lost the perspective to see beyond it.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "By filing this bug report you have challenged the honor of
my family. PREPARE TO DIE!" -- Klingon Programming Mantra