Re: Boeing XRI Use Cases

On 7/15/08, Paul Prescod <> wrote:
> Mark: you imply that it is more damaging to the Web to have people treating
> URIs as transparent than it is to have new URI schemes which cannot be
> interpreted by the huge mass of HTTP-aware software out there. Can you just
> if that position?
> I feel like there are certain irreconcilable goals here:
>  1. use HTTP URIs (and protocol) for HTTP-only applications
>  2. add additional functionality beyond HTTP for XRI-aware applications
>  3. encode the trigger for that functionality *in the URI* and not in markup
> or elsewhere
>  4. keep URIs opaque
> Does that seem like a reasonable summary of the situation? If so, how did
> you select 4. as the goal to prioritize beyond the others?

To be blunt, because my interest is in protecting the Web by isolating
the damage caused by unnecessary technologies.  If the additional
functionality provided by XRIs were something of terrific value that
couldn't be provided simply using http URIs and hypermedia, I would
most certainly be offering different advice.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies

Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 15:08:04 UTC