- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:19:16 -0700
- To: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, uri@w3.org
Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote: > (Now, wouldn't it be really neat if the architecture guys actually > /believed/ in the architecture. But then that's clearly blasphemous I assume (despite the above) that the people behind "info:" include one or more who are capable of level-headed adult discourse. I think it would be helpful to address the observation, made by one looking from outside, that there seem to be substantial areas of overlap between several of the proposed and existing URI schemes. I suspect that I will not be the only one wondering about this. Let us consider the case, as a thought-experiment, where the IETF confers its blessing on each and every one of these schemes. In this case, it would be tremendously helpful if there were a short taxonomic guide for newcomers to aid in selecting schemes for the URIs they might be in a position to mint. In fact, if it were up to me I wouldn't let this whole thing go a step further until such a thing existed. It would be interesting if there were significant classes of resources for which more than one competing URI scheme claimed to be the appropriate choice. I'd probably be OK with that, within reason. -Tim
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 02:19:13 UTC