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

Re: URIs for the standard output and input streams

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:52:54 +0000
Message-ID: <478C9E96.4040704@hpl.hp.com>
To: uri@w3.org

Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:31:27AM +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> win on the cost basis ... one might want to define the std scheme as 
>> extensible by future revision, so that if the future suggests, for example, 
>> the use of file descriptors in URIs we might later get
> 
> I disagree, there is no reason that I can see why you should invent a
> new scheme for this when plain old HTTP will do.
> 

I wasn't particularly wanting to advocate a new scheme, just adding by 
2p worth, but HTTP seems inappropriate here.

stdin, stdout and stderr are OS provided protocols, and not the network 
protocol HTTP - hence an HTTP uri seems wholly inappropriate.

While say the geoloc vs http argument has merits on both sides - the 
"HTTP is the only necessary protocol" argument is taken to absurdity with

http://purl.org/std/in

to mean some completely different protocol for accessing representations 
of the resource.

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:53:19 GMT

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