On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 at 19:02:40 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: > Yoric wrote: > > By opposition, the library: protocol > > * doesn't break anything > > * can work together with any delivery protocol (we're using mostly http: > > and file:, but also jar: for decompression and we hope we'll be able to > > use some peer-to-peer protocol in the future for distributed libraries) > > * already takes advantage of Mozilla's caching > > * resolves ambiguities between book identifier / resources inside the > > book / book inside book / etc.
"New URI Schemes: 99% Harmful" <http://infomesh.net/2001/09/urischemes> A specification SHOULD reuse an existing URI scheme (rather than create a new one) when it provides the desired properties of identifiers and their relation to resources. <http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-scheme> If you're positive that you need a new URI scheme, please do it properly: consult <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt> and <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2718.txt> for details. Simon _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
