W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2008

Re: URIs for the standard output and input streams

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:42:08 -0800
Message-ID: <517bf110801121742sa01c520gb26df0f62dfb3843@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mike Schinkel" <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
Cc: "Colin Paul Adams" <colin@colina.demon.co.uk>, uri@w3.org

On Jan 12, 2008 5:30 PM, Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Although if you were going to do this you'd want stderr as
> > well, and you'd probably like to avoid creating three new URI
> > schemes, so something like std:in/std:out/std:err or maybe
> > urn:std:in, etc. would work well.
>
> Rather than "std:" wouldn't something like "stdio:" make a bit more sense?
> OTOH, "stdin:", "stdout:", "stderr:" are more "standard", no pun intended,
> so I'd wonder it wouldn't make sense to go with them?  Just a thought...

Well, URI schemes are expensive.  Lots of widely-deployed software
dispatches on the scheme.  Lots of people, like me for example, tend
to grumble about introducing new ones, let alone three new ones to
identify a single class of object.  -Tim
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2008 01:42:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:40 GMT