W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > December 2007

Re: URIs & Namespaces

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:25:43 -0800
Message-ID: <475F46A7.9000407@berkeley.edu>
To: uri@w3.org
CC: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>

hello mike.

> What I'm about to say may sound sarcastic but I'm just being matter-of-fact
> so please take it that way.  I'm coming to the conclusion that you came to
> this list not so much to get other's opinions on the use of a URI scheme for
> location but instead to advocate for the use of a URI scheme for a location.

what i was asking is still in the subject line of this thread: suppose 
you would accept my idea of using namespaces in uris (and i simply used 
locations here because that is the use case i am currently working on), 
from a purely technical perspective, how would you do it? that was and 
is my main interest. but since most of the comments focused on the use 
case (which is understandable), the discussion definitely drifted into 
that direction (still appropriate for this list, but not my original 
question).

to conclude: all feedback i got so far basically said "don't come up 
with new uri schemes anyway", which is something i hear a lot. i will 
think about that (which may take a while), but supposed you 
http-fundamentalists out there assumed for just one second that somebody 
would have a convincing use case for (a) a new uri scheme and (b) a 
well-justified need for namespaces within that scheme: how would you do it?

thanks,

dret.
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 02:30:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:37 GMT