Re: URIs for the standard output and input streams

On Jan 12, 2008 5:30 PM, Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Although if you were going to do this you'd want stderr as
> > well, and you'd probably like to avoid creating three new URI
> > schemes, so something like std:in/std:out/std:err or maybe
> > urn:std:in, etc. would work well.
>
> Rather than "std:" wouldn't something like "stdio:" make a bit more sense?
> OTOH, "stdin:", "stdout:", "stderr:" are more "standard", no pun intended,
> so I'd wonder it wouldn't make sense to go with them?  Just a thought...

Well, URI schemes are expensive.  Lots of widely-deployed software
dispatches on the scheme.  Lots of people, like me for example, tend
to grumble about introducing new ones, let alone three new ones to
identify a single class of object.  -Tim