Mikael Tillenius scripsit: > Ok, thanks. Then there isn't much structure left in URIs. The first part > is called a scheme, then comes the authority and then a path but there > is no interpretation of any of those parts.
Things aren't as bad as you make them out to be. The scheme specifies how the authority is to be interpreted, and the system named by the host part of the authority decides how to interpret the path (which contains a hierarchical key) and the query (which contains zero or more non-hierarchical keys, often but not always name-value pairs). It's true that there is no complete and normative registry of schemes (as there is no complete and normative registry of programming languages, e.g.). There is a partial normative registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html , and there is a larger informative registry, obsolete but still useful, at http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes . In practice, collision between scheme names isn't much of a problem. -- On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] you're not a dog. --Bill de hOra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
