Hello, On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>wrote: > I would like to ask for feedback on the idea of proposing a new URI scheme > or a new URN namespace for this purpose, something like 'abstract'. > It will look something like this (please focus on the idea, not the syntax > of the examples): > > urn:abstract:domain:example.com > urn:abstract:host:example.com:8080 > urn:abstract:origin:example.com:8080:http > I think URN is not applicable for those URIs, because all those URIs includes complete information for resource location, so you should use URLs (but not http urls). > or > > abstract://example.com/domain > abstract://example.com:8080/host > abstract://example.com:8080:http/origin > > Any comments, feedback, or concerns would be greatly appreciated. "abstract" schema name is not a good idea, because level of such abstraction is unclear. "abstract" is too abstract word Better use "host" for listed purposed, like in example: If wou wont to identify/locate domain <http://example.com/domain>s use * host:example.com* If wou wont to identify/locate service on port use *host:example.com:8080* If wou wont to identify/locate exact http on port 8080 use * http://example.com:8080* If wou wont to identify/locate host by ip use *host:208.77.188.166 * note that you can not use "://" if URL is not designed to locate resource associated with path as in http ~Timur
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 11:52:10 UTC