- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:30:56 +0200
- To: fielding@eBuilt.com, a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk
- Cc: www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> The scheme name is completely irrelevant to a URI's capacity for > identification -- it merely indicates the syntax for that > namespace and, > when used in the context of a user action, some hint to the software > responsible for that action as to how it should go about handling the > identifier. I really can't agree with that. That's like saying that, because a 'mailto:' URI is a URI and URI's can identify anything, I can use a 'mailto:' URI to denote an abstract concept and software should *know* that it means the abstract concept and not a way to send some content to a particular mailbox. Sorry... I just don't see that as beneficial to the web. The dilution of semantics of URLs and URNs into just URI creates just too much confusion about the nature of specific URI schemes which invites abuse which results in chaos. The URI scheme *should* say something about the nature and general semantics of the identifiers grounded in that scheme. To say that the scheme identity is irrelevant and everything goes is ludicrous. Why not then toss out *all* URI schemes, and just call everything 'uri:'?! Patrick
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 05:31:25 UTC