LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  August 2015

CODE4LIB August 2015

Subject:

Re: Protocol-relative URLs in MARC

From:

Kevin Ford <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:21:38 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (41 lines)

I think it is technically permissible, but unwise for a host of reasons, 
a number of which have been noted in this thread.

It boils down to this:  at the end of the day - and putting aside the 
whole SSL/non-SSL tangent - it is a "relative reference" according to 
the RFC and that begs the question, "Relative to what?"  Is it relative 
to your specific system?  Relative to the value found in the $2?  And 
how is this crucial component - the base-uri/scheme with which to make 
the reference absolute - captured?

And that’s the crux of the issue.  You are looking to address the binary 
choice between http/https, but those are only two possible schemes out 
of many.  Other valid schemes could be:  ftp, sftp, ldap, rtmp, rsync, 
udp, file, etc.

And, without anyway of knowing which scheme is valid, if you dropped the 
'scheme' from the URI and those records made it into the wild, the 
utility of those $u subfields will be substantially diminished, minimally.

Finally, I also suspect that it is uncommon (at best) to find relative 
references in $u (for the reasons above). The RFC recognizes as much, 
noting "a relative reference that begins with two slash characters...are 
rarely used."

Why not just repeat the $u?  This is one of the reasons it is repeatable.

Rgds,
Kevin


On 8/17/15 5:44 PM, Cary Gordon wrote:
> I think that this is a great idea, if you control all of the URLs in your systems. Otherwise unless all of the major browsers drop http — unlikely — it easily has another ten years in it.
>
> Chrome dropped support for SHA-1 a few months ago, and I am sure that it will be another 33 months before all of the old certs are fixed. In other words, the pre-drop certs will all have expired by then and all new ones are SHA-2.
>
> Cary
>
>
>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Andrew Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> That said, there is a big push recently for dropping non-SSL connections in general (going so far as to call the protocol relative URIs an anti-pattern), so is it really worth all the potential pain and suffering to make your links scheme-agnostic, when maybe it would be a better investment in time to switch them all to SSL instead?  This dovetails nicely with some of the discussions I have had recently with electronic services librarians about how to protect patron privacy in an online world by using SSL as an arrow in that quiver.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager