Re: Announcement: The "info" URI Scheme

On 2003-10-02 20:09, "ext Eamonn Neylon" <eneylon@manifestsolutions.com>
wrote:


> It's not about trust: "info:" is about having a pragmatic means of making
> existing identifiers available to applications that need URI but do not need
> dereference. 

And this is IMO the big mistake that is being made. To presume that
users will never want to obtain information about the things denoted
by those URIs is wrong.

*I* expect to be a user of such URIs, and I certainly want to be
able to access authoritative information via those URIs, and not
by having to deploy a completely needless parallel infrastructure
when HTTP will work just fine.


>>> And dereference is very useful.
> 
> Provided someone somewhere is willing, and allowed to, to provide a
> dereference service then, yes, dereference is useful.

But they *have*! It's called HTTP!

> However, "info:" is
> concerned with getting namespaces relevant to the community of use made
> available as valid URI identifiers. Given that if http URIs exist for these
> things then we would use them, the need for "info:" stems from the
> non-existence of dereferencable representations for these things on the
> Internet.

You seem to be arguing in circles here. The reason for creating
a non-resolvable URI scheme is because resolvable URIs for certain
things do not exist?...

Why not just invest the same effort into defining http: URIs for
all those things and then you'd both have the URIs you need *and*
they would be dereferencable -- and by using the web authority
component of the http: URIs, you can delegate resolution responsibility
to each registrant.

You have the opportunity here to essentially have you cake and eat it.

Cheers,

Patrick