Re: URIs & Namespaces

hello mike.

> What I'm about to say may sound sarcastic but I'm just being matter-of-fact
> so please take it that way.  I'm coming to the conclusion that you came to
> this list not so much to get other's opinions on the use of a URI scheme for
> location but instead to advocate for the use of a URI scheme for a location.

what i was asking is still in the subject line of this thread: suppose 
you would accept my idea of using namespaces in uris (and i simply used 
locations here because that is the use case i am currently working on), 
from a purely technical perspective, how would you do it? that was and 
is my main interest. but since most of the comments focused on the use 
case (which is understandable), the discussion definitely drifted into 
that direction (still appropriate for this list, but not my original 

to conclude: all feedback i got so far basically said "don't come up 
with new uri schemes anyway", which is something i hear a lot. i will 
think about that (which may take a while), but supposed you 
http-fundamentalists out there assumed for just one second that somebody 
would have a convincing use case for (a) a new uri scheme and (b) a 
well-justified need for namespaces within that scheme: how would you do it?



Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 02:30:58 UTC