Subject: [wellknown-uri-review] automatic parsing

From: Guilherme Silveira <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:00:53 -0300

Hello,

I really liked the registry for well known URI's, although it was not
clear for me if its existence would be for human or machine use.

If a system was to consume a list of well known URIs from a public
registry and check it against a domain, it requires N (HEAD) requests
to determine which ones are available.

On the other hand, if a HEAD request to one single well known URI in
the target domain was to return a list of entry points, representing
the previously set of well known URIs for that domain, we just
required one request to know what is available. With one extra request
(M requests) for every implemented entry point or described resource.

You can still use the public registry to register well-known
relations, something as a media type registry as IANAs, but with
better design, so automatic tools could use it.

If the web keeps evolving as today, M would be much smaller than N.
What do you think?

Regards

Guilherme Silveira
Caelum | Ensino e Inovação
http://www.caelum.com.br/

---

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:36:39 -0700

This was proposed during last call for the RFC. I think this is a good idea but a bit premature given that until the registry is empty. It is not clear how people will use it and how many separate documents it will hold. For example, we don't know if there will be a split between files for mobile and files for server requests.

EHL

On 4/13/10 11:00 AM, "Guilherme Silveira" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hello,

Regards

Guilherme Silveira
Caelum | Ensino e Inovação
http://www.caelum.com.br/
_______________________________________________
wellknown-uri-review mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review