On Apr 09, 2012, at 07:10 AM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >I support the concept of Stable URI. The concept of using a hash into a large >namespace is probably adequate. However, at a minimum, the URI SHOULD >include an easily identifiable schema-revision indicator. That way, if the >present scheme is found lacking, we can, compatibly, switch to a new schema >and a new namespace.
Should we attempt to push the stable URI concept as an RFC? Does anybody (Murray perhaps) have the interest and time to do that? I think the RFC would be pretty simple. Having an RFC would also be nice for getting rid of the X- prefix. In any event, we can declare the algorithm on our current wiki page to be version 1.0 of our stable URI definition. Archiver search algorithms can expose this version number in their URLs if they're so inclined. E.g.: http://mail.example.com/1.0/7GC2V6BEDVME27VQ34W7AXMFPA3H2YWW I should probably also be able to find the message this way: http://mail.example.com/search?message-id=%3C20120409152339.16496.75486%40foo.example.org%3E and probably http://mail.example.com/search?strict=1&message-id=20120409152339.16496.75486%40foo.example.org and maybe others. -Barry _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
