W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:47:48 -0500
Message-ID: <027a01c160d4$2047e380$d6061812@CREST>
To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, <harald.alvestrand@maxware.no>, "Dan Zigmond" <djz@corp.webtv.net>, "Rich Petke" <rpetke@wcom.net>, "Rob Lanphier" <robla@real.com>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Lanphier" <robla@real.com>
To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>; "Larry Masinter"
<masinter@parc.xerox.com>; <harald.alvestrand@maxware.no>; "Dan Zigmond"
<djz@corp.webtv.net>; "Rich Petke" <rpetke@wcom.net>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>; "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:12 AM
Subject: RE: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

> At 02:15 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> >Content-Types should be defined by URIs, as are XML Namespaces. These
> >leverage the existing URI schemes to anchor thier meanings in the web.
> >This allows anyone to make a local private Content-Type or namespace for
> >their own use. This does NOT apply to URI schemes.  The process has to be
> >rooted somewhere, and that root is the URI spec and the *small* set
> >of  URI schemes.
> I'm confused by this statement.

My statement says that too many URI schemes is a bad thing,.

Trying again the explanation, it is because you have to program in a new URI
you can't look it up.

> In your estimation, is the Eastlake
> proposal to solve this problem a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or just a
> Thing.  For your reference:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-cturi-02.txt

That document is not a proposal to solve the problem I stated.
But its  a Good Thing.

It aims to solve another one, that Content-Types are not URIs.
I think it does a reasonable job, except of course that I don't like the
fact that it introduces a new scheme.   It doesn't have to - it
would work just fine with the an http:/something/ prefix.
I would prefer that there be some
commitment to a part of http: space so that IANA can provide
some definitive information about them.


would be more useful to me, so long as we had a commitment
written in stone that content-type.org would exist forever wihtout
anyone paying fees etc.

But I would be happy with the <content-type: ... > URI scheme.

> I'm assuming you see this as a Bad Thing, at which point, I anxiously
> an alternate proposal.

Well, I'm not sure which you think I think is Bad Thing.

> Thanks
> Rob
Received on Monday, 29 October 2001 18:48:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC