 |
 |
Houghton,Andrew writes: > > > 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, either. 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