RE: non-http uris

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > Since you believe so strongly in having a geoloc: scheme, why not 
> > create an implementation that requires it and attempt to 
> see it become 
> > widely deployed/utilized?
> 
> I have very mixed feelings about this.  In general, putting 
> trial technology out there and letting the market decide is a 
> good thing, but I'm not sure there are good ways to 
> experimentally "squat" on parts of URI space.  

Yeah, I can definitely appreciate that. 

> If Erik starts using geocode: then (a) I would think he should 
> register it and (b) that would mean that for all time nobody 
> else could use it either for an entirely different purpose or, more 
> likely, for geographic codes implemented in a different way.  

Given that Erik seems to have altrustic goals, however, I wouldn't see that
as too big of problem. After all, if schemes should be rare why should
squatting on an entirely reasonable one be a real problem?

I do understand it can be a slippery slope, but I'm not sure the decline of
that slope would have to start here.

> My intuition would be to not deploy a new URI scheme unless 
> you, and preferably a significant fraction of the affected 
> community, agrees that it's a good long term investment.  
> Just my opinion, and it may well be that there are 
> conventions for experimenting with schemes and that I am 
> unaware of them. 

In general, I agree. But Erik seems determined that a "geoloc:" scheme is
the best and only viable solution, and no arguments thus far has deterred
him from believing that (Erik, if I'm misinterpretted your beliefs forgive
me but that is the feeling I've gotten from your last several posts.)  

So my suggestion was based on the fact that many people have ideas but few
every actually invest time in seeing all their ideas become reality (and I
am more guilty of that than most.)  I was basically saying "If you feel so
strongly that geoloc: must be a scheme, put your time and effort where your
mouth is and make it happen" with the expectation that the chances of it
actually happening were very close to negligible without support from others
driving it And this is no slight to Erik, we all how limits on our own
abilities to invest our time in our ideas.  But if Erik did make it happen,
then I would assume that it would probably be a good thing.

> Also:  the fact that something like a geocode scheme starts 
> to get widespread adoption doesn't entirely settle the 
> question of whether it was the right architecture for the 
> greater good.  

True, but interestingly only a very few people responded on this issue.  To
determine the right architecture it really should interest a greater number
of people to participate in its design, no?

> It's quite possible that it's conveniently 
> meeting the short term needs of early users, while 
> sacrificing potentially important long term benefits such as 
> integration with the browsable Web, etc. 

Just curious, is that a general principle but not for these specifics, or
specifically related to this question?  

Do you have a current opinion on what would be best, or do you just think it
needs a lot more exploration?

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

Received on Friday, 4 January 2008 23:34:11 UTC