W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2001

RE: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 02:12:17 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010925015608.02af3de0@goobox.prognet.com>
To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, <harald.alvestrand@maxware.no>, "Dan Zigmond" <djz@corp.webtv.net>, "Rich Petke" <rpetke@wcom.net>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
At 02:15 PM 9/24/2001 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>Content-Types should be defined by URIs, as are XML Namespaces. These then 
>leverage the existing URI schemes to anchor thier meanings in the web. 
>This allows anyone to make a local private Content-Type or namespace for 
>their own use. This does NOT apply to URI schemes.  The process has to be 
>rooted somewhere, and that root is the URI spec and the *small* set 
>of  URI schemes.

I'm confused by this statement.  In your estimation, is the Eastlake 
proposal to solve this problem a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or just a 
Thing.  For your reference:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-cturi-02.txt

I'm assuming you see this as a Bad Thing, at which point, I anxiously await 
an alternate proposal.

Thanks
Rob
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 05:10:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC