š
Original date posted:2011-12-16
šļø Summary of this message: The IETF does not specify anything in the PATH part of the URI, but it's important to use technology people are already familiar with for usability.
š Original message:On Friday 16 Dec 2011 17:41:25 Rick Wesson wrote:
> Its a negative example -- in that the IETF does not specify anything
> in the PATH part of the URI. The scheme, sure, but not in the path,
> there are many types of URI schemes ( start with RFC 2396 )
You seem to have jumped off the topic; you mentioned that there were
thousands of RFCs that we should review over why we shouldn't use a URI; and
you've pointed at an RFC that shows how a URI can be used.
While you're right that CGI and HTTP aren't magic; they are commonplace; and
it's important when we want an infinitely expandable mapping system that
people can use technology they are already familiar with. People already
have web servers, people already understand URIs. It's not "just what we
are used to"; people who can cope with development of the bitcoin protocol
aren't going to be worried about protocol complexity. It is a concern about
what the rest of the world will have to do to get a bitcoin alias.
> Providing a mapping from user at authority.tld addresses usability and
No it doesn't address usability at all, because it falls down on the first
attempt: what if I want to supply a URI that allows my web service to link
an invoice number to an issued bitcoin address? You've forced every mapping
service to be identical, and limited.
> identity. I'd like to see an elegant transformation, specifically I
> take to task anyone that advocates
> https://authority/foo/user?tx=1zhd789632uilos as elegant.
You've been unfair, the equivalent of your "user at authority.tld" is
"https://authority.tld/user"; or "https://user.authority.tld/"; or
"https://google.com/bitcoin/user"; or any of an infinite number of other
variations that _I_ as the mapper get to choose rather than whoever wrote
the BIP; all of which are arguably no less "elegant" than that simple email.
There is no equivalent in the other direction though. For someone who
want's to supply the TX to their mapping server... where does it go in
"user at authority.tld"?
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins at gmail.com
Andy Parkins [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nxā¦7wjrv
2023-06-07 04:48:13
in reply to nevent1qā¦tq6z
Author Public Key
npub1nxlvf9mj3jzgue25n5d9y47s3h5hvg0ded9hwpejdxj9mtrs34vs97wjrvPublished at
2023-06-07 04:48:13Event JSON
{
"id": "5ab5c60a8aa94b590d8b18d669d4b74e0cbf6b54d93bd3912271a1a63e8fbe89",
"pubkey": "99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59",
"created_at": 1686106093,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f45e7ca88e6eb3dd1e645e8e3cbb476c5b24e8003cb71eebe205594bb2a4d152",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6a255743b1a2c8d57605476107e67aebd31b41752b12cffcf8e3c43dfb1aebb9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"99bec497728c848e65549d1a5257d08de97621edcb4b77073269a45dac708d59"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2011-12-16\nšļø Summary of this message: The IETF does not specify anything in the PATH part of the URI, but it's important to use technology people are already familiar with for usability.\nš Original message:On Friday 16 Dec 2011 17:41:25 Rick Wesson wrote:\n\u003e Its a negative example -- in that the IETF does not specify anything\n\u003e in the PATH part of the URI. The scheme, sure, but not in the path,\n\u003e there are many types of URI schemes ( start with RFC 2396 )\n\nYou seem to have jumped off the topic; you mentioned that there were \nthousands of RFCs that we should review over why we shouldn't use a URI; and \nyou've pointed at an RFC that shows how a URI can be used.\n\nWhile you're right that CGI and HTTP aren't magic; they are commonplace; and \nit's important when we want an infinitely expandable mapping system that \npeople can use technology they are already familiar with. People already \nhave web servers, people already understand URIs. It's not \"just what we \nare used to\"; people who can cope with development of the bitcoin protocol \naren't going to be worried about protocol complexity. It is a concern about \nwhat the rest of the world will have to do to get a bitcoin alias.\n\n\u003e Providing a mapping from user at authority.tld addresses usability and\n\nNo it doesn't address usability at all, because it falls down on the first \nattempt: what if I want to supply a URI that allows my web service to link \nan invoice number to an issued bitcoin address? You've forced every mapping \nservice to be identical, and limited.\n\n\u003e identity. I'd like to see an elegant transformation, specifically I\n\u003e take to task anyone that advocates\n\u003e https://authority/foo/user?tx=1zhd789632uilos as elegant.\n\nYou've been unfair, the equivalent of your \"user at authority.tld\" is \n\"https://authority.tld/user\" or \"https://user.authority.tld/\" or \n\"https://google.com/bitcoin/user\" or any of an infinite number of other \nvariations that _I_ as the mapper get to choose rather than whoever wrote \nthe BIP; all of which are arguably no less \"elegant\" than that simple email.\n\nThere is no equivalent in the other direction though. For someone who \nwant's to supply the TX to their mapping server... where does it go in \n\"user at authority.tld\"?\n\n\n\nAndy\n\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins\nandyparkins at gmail.com",
"sig": "82c4547cf39ca2c478285a17c8877f75a0d5b93b3f19dd770147320f06942f0b177c3e9f18bcbe9a9422f44f092773b9be12361efbe8f139d9d9d76fcef2e73c"
}