- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:52:54 +0000
- To: uri@w3.org
Noah Slater wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:31:27AM +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> win on the cost basis ... one might want to define the std scheme as >> extensible by future revision, so that if the future suggests, for example, >> the use of file descriptors in URIs we might later get > > I disagree, there is no reason that I can see why you should invent a > new scheme for this when plain old HTTP will do. > I wasn't particularly wanting to advocate a new scheme, just adding by 2p worth, but HTTP seems inappropriate here. stdin, stdout and stderr are OS provided protocols, and not the network protocol HTTP - hence an HTTP uri seems wholly inappropriate. While say the geoloc vs http argument has merits on both sides - the "HTTP is the only necessary protocol" argument is taken to absurdity with http://purl.org/std/in to mean some completely different protocol for accessing representations of the resource. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:53:19 UTC