John Cowan escribió: > 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).
Yes, I agree. URIs certainly work very well and could be used for library names in Scheme. My main point was just that they don't actually solve any problems that cannot be solved (in essentailly the very same way) by som other syntax, such as s-exps. You either risk name collisions _or_ need a central authority. In practice I don't think name collisions would be a big problem and over time conventions could be established (e.g. start with your organizations name). /Mikael _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
