- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:42:08 -0800
- To: "Mike Schinkel" <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Colin Paul Adams" <colin@colina.demon.co.uk>, uri@w3.org
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
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2008 01:42:16 UTC