On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 07:29:30PM -0400, Miles Fidelman <[email protected]> wrote a message of 53 lines which said:
> 1. There are a LOT more registered URI schemes, and URN namespaces > than anybody actually uses. Correct. > 2. Most of the URI schemes that are actually used, tend to include > a protocol. Hard to say scientifically but probable. > 3. (I may be on shakier ground here) the few URN namespaces that > I've seen that have any traction at all, seem to have a resolution > protocol associated with them - and usually the resolution ends up > being a plain old HTTP URL. OK, but there is also the opposite: HTTP URIs which do not resolve (very common in the XML world). > What's the utility of a URI scheme for DHTs (either a general scheme > or one specific to, say, gnunet or bittorrent), other than as, > perhaps, a notational device, if it's not tied to an access and/or a > resolution protocol that can be implemented in, say, a proxy of some > sort? A very good reading, if you want to follow this track, is: http://norman.walsh.name/2006/07/25/namesAndAddresses _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
