RE: location vs. map scheme

Erik Wilde wrote:
> this is how i got started with all of that. 

Yes, we are coming full circle.  :-)

> i do see that for your example, even though 
> urn:isbn:006251587X would be more accurate in terms of "the 
> best uri", it would be less useful for me as a human because 
> my browser does not recognize that uri. and if it did, it 
> would probably have all kinds of "helpful widgets" from 
> booksellers trying to get into the configuration to be 
> registered as the handler for that. a bit like all those 
> programs trying to capture as many media types as possible 
> upon installation.

I definitely don't want to rehash what we've already covered, but based on
this last paragraph of yours can you tell me how your browser would
recognize a "geoloc:" scheme when it can't recognize a "isbn" URN (nor a
"geoloc" URN for that matter?)

BTW, this is no technical reason why a browser that recognized "urn:isbn"
would have to support "helpful widgets" from booksellers even though you
imply that as a given,  These 'helpful widgets' would only appear if a
W3C/IETF concensus was reached and a recommendation issued for technology to
support that.   After all, all of our browsers currently use DNS indirectly
yet there are no commercial interests inserting themselves into our DNS
lookups are there?

> i think that now is a good time to think about whether the 
> web should embrace location as a first-level concept, or 
> whether it should stay location-agnostic and let applications 
> and services sort things out. the iphone with some built-in 
> code for recognizing map uris and handing them over to the 
> built-in map application is a good indication of things to 
> come, and i think there should be a better way for doing this.

Even after all the debate, I agree with your high-level thoughts here.  :-)

-- 
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org
http://atlanta-web.org

Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 01:32:53 UTC