Re: COMURI

IMHO the title ("Compact Uniform Resource Identifier" - COMURI) is a bad
name as it is going to draw obvious confusion with another W3C proposed
standard: CURIE Syntax 1.0 - A syntax for expressing Compact URIs [1]. The
difference being that CURIEs have been around for a long time and have a
lot of real world usage and implementations (not to mention it's been
incorporated into the RDFa Core 1.1 Recommendation [2]).

That said, I see that COMURI and CURIEs have entirely different purposes
and scope. However, I think confusion should be avoided, and as it is it
would take a while for someone new to both to read them in depth and tell
them apart.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_curies

Best regards,
Augusto

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:

> Hi Tomas, Hi all,
>
> I think that this is an issue that has already been discussed a lot of
> times by the community. Pros and Cons.
>
> Like others in the group, I also prefer opaque URIs.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best Regards.
> Laufer
>
> 2014-09-28 13:09 GMT-03:00 Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>:
>
> Tomas,
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > * Human and machine
>> > URIs *must* be human and machine friendly: it is good for both.
>> >
>> > The reality today is that humans {developers are also humans :-)} type
>> > a lot of URIs and IP addresses :-)
>> >
>> > And human readbility is money: look at the prices of some domains :-)
>> >
>>
>> You are right about domain names, but it is my experience that
>> practically no-one types in anything more than domain+TLD in a browser
>> and most people don't even do that. And are you serious about typing in
>> IP addresses?
>>
>> Makx.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .
>