Re: Announcement: The "info" URI Scheme

I'm sorry, but I don't think your criticisms are valid for
the approach I am advocating.

Nothing is being dumbed down. The namespaces available are
essentially unlimited.

I don't hold an "everything http:" view, *but* if we are talking
about the Web and SW (not just URIs or RDF) then using a URI
scheme that is *meaningful* to the web architecture in terms
of some kind of resolution protocol seems quite reasonable to
expect.

Patrick


On 2003-10-01 22:16, "ext Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name> wrote:

> 
> On 1 Oct 2003 at 11:42, Garret Wilson wrote:
> 
>> While I have a long history of agreeing with Patrick, I don't know that
>> I like this idea. Note that I'm not necessarily agreeing with the info:
>> proposal below, just reacting to the "everything http:" statement. (I
>> also have a hunch that the things I will soon say will be old news and
>> will have been discussed for years on the RDF lists when I wasn't looking.)
> 
> I'm in complete agreement here, too.  The "everything http" faction
> seems to be a close relative of the "everything .com" faction of
> domain name usage, whereby people insist that all sorts of Web sites
> ought to have .com addresses, regardless of whether some other TLD
> would make more logical sence (e.g., for a site that's
> noncommercial), because "everybody expects that", plus "browsers
> automatically fill it in".
> 
> In this way, as everybody goes for the quick-fix of doing what's well
> known and well supported now in preference to what's more logical but
> less familiar, the net gets dumbed down and the namespaces are
> impoverished because only a small subset is in active use, and is
> often abused.
>

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 03:26:40 UTC