Re: URIs & Namespaces

Erik Wilde scripsit:

> really? you surely know 
> and there must be some reason why you don't think that's a reliable 
> registry. enlighten us.

It's radically incomplete and doesn't reflect the Real World,
only those people who have bothered to write RFCs for their schemes.
There's another list of schemes, more comprehensive but marked obsolete,
at .  There is no list that
is both normative and comprehensive.

> i am still unconvinced that binding resource semantics to a domain name 
> and tunnel that through http is a good thing. not if you think that the 
> semantics should be explicit and universally usable.

No tunneling is required, and the semantics are just as explicit and
universally available one way as the other.  It's just handier to be
able to type the URI into a browser and get something instead of
"Firefox doesn't know how to open this address, because the protocol
(geoloc) isn't associated with any program."

Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield],        John Cowan
one who looks with unconcern on a man 
struggling for life in the water, and when
he has reached ground encumbers him with help?
        --Samuel Johnson

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 00:14:13 UTC