- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:31:58 +0000
- To: "Schleiff, Marty" <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>
- CC: "Ray Denenberg, Library ofCongress" <rden@loc.gov>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Hi Marty, > From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] > > You stated that introducing a URI scheme for XRI "... is > harmful to the > web." How would it be harmful to the web? Is this an objection to any > new scheme, or just XRI? Does your objection apply to existing schemes > other than http:? Yes, this would be an objection to any new URI scheme. It is not specific to XRIs. New schemes are harmful because they cause fragmentation of the web. (This reminds me of the well-known joke about standards: "The wonderful thing about standards is how many there are to choose from.") In some sense this same fragmentation principle could have applied to existing schemes such as ftp:, however: - That's water under the bridge now. - The FTP protocol was already entrenched (for decades) in usage before HTTP was invented. - Different factors came into play when the web was first being bootstrapped. HTTP was *not* yet ubiquitous. There were many different protocols in use. So the first task was to tie them together with browsers and URIs. - Awareness of the sufficiency of the http: scheme (even when a non-HTTP protocol is used) had not yet developed. David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 17:33:12 UTC