- From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:52:45 -0500
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Erik Wilde'" <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
Sandro Hawke wrote: > First off, I think stdin, etc, is an excellent example of > something which, if it's going to be a URI, should *not* be > an http URI. (For the reasons given earlier, about how > software not familiar with this proposed new convention would > respond.) Just to weigh in since I've been advocating HTTP URLs for other approaches, I agree with Sandro here that stdin/out/err should probably not be an HTTP URL because there are a small finite number representing a relatively well-known concept that would easily be googlable in the case the person seeing it doesn't understand it. OTOH, geo locations are a very large set and essentially infinite (if you consider finer and finer granularity) representing a most-likely unknown location thus could benefit from an canonical resource accessible via HTTP instead of forcing the person to go spelunking to find information about the location. Further, services reachable via hypermedia traversal could later be layered on top of the canonical resource which a scheme alone could never do. Yes the same could be true with stdin/out/err but I see the costs of layering them over HTTP to quickly outweigh the benefits, at least IMO. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 21:53:07 UTC