Re: uri scheme proposal

Erik Wilde wrote:
 
> the "everything should be http" school of thought took notice very
> quickly
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00608.html

Your interpretation of that article as "everything should be http"
is odd.  I asked what the "resource" is in this proposal, and how
it is different from hypothetical mjd: (for modified julian date),
string: (for string length), or similar schemes.

I didn't read the std: thread so far.  But Jeremy's proposal that
this feature could be added to file: when it's updated for STD 66
makes sense.  Obviously I wouldn't try to document (and deprecate)
snews: if I'd think that silence is a better way to get rid of it.

 Frank