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


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

Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:53:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:11 UTC