Ludovic Courtès wrote: > SRFI-84 discusses this and the conclusion was [0]: > > * Basing library identifiers on globally assigned identifiers (such as > domain names or email addresses) is problematic, because you may stop > using or lose control of your domain name or email address.
URI syntax is not defined in terms of domain names or email addresses. You are confusing URIs with a subclass of URIs, namely URLs. > (And it > just moves the responsibility for getting you a unique identifier on > to some already existing system such as the domain name system). > > That is a problem with URLs, not URIs. All people, no authority required, are free to assemble in communities defined by an agreement on the meaning of URI method field values. Within a given agreed upon method, naming authorities may be defined fairly arbitrarily -- they are not limited to domain names, etc. > This applies notably to Java-like DNS-based library names. Did you have > something else in mind? > Just that. URLs *can* become quickly relevant as Internet-situated infrastructure is built-out but mainly what is called for is standardization on URIa, nor URLs. -t > Thanks, > Ludovic. > > [0] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-84/mail-archive/msg00028.html > > _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
