On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 03:58, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > I was thinking along these lines. > > I don't think we need a special URI scheme more a general purpose pronominal > scheme. > > Look at the eid scheme > > > http://www-old.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-finseth-url-00.txt Eeek! > the web fundamentalists will attack ... Indeed. > it's worth finding out how rough a ride eid had. > > Jeremy > > PS: As an implementator I am certainly game for implementing something along > these lines, and I think a URI scheme is better than extensions of a > well-known URI. I can't see an argument that merits a new URI scheme. Implementors could agree on a common spelling that *isn't* a URI... something like: :ex-uuid:e3l54j63l4ij532l4i5j2l3i4j5 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 10:26:59 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:22 EDT