> > However, I don't think this is unreasonable. There is no requirement
> > that tools be able to parse URIs to extract meta-data.

> There is a requirement that repositories "work" (at some minimum level)
> without metadata, especially since we aren't specifying metadata.
> Without a parsable URI (or parsable URL) how do tools read a repository
> to do things like "clean oldest nightly/snapshot, but leave all releases",
> "download latest release" or even the basics "determine/display contents",
> "show basic contents" (irrespective of version/type).

Adam, and how is said tool going to start in the first place?  Without
meta-data, there is a limit to what the tool can do.  Basically, it would
have to operate relative to the URL provided to it.

As for the particular examples you gave, those carry semantic meaning that
would require more specification that is contained in the URI syntax.
Although those would be desirable, I don't know that we want to including
that kind of semantic specification in the URI.

> If we are proposing a standard, there has to be a valid purpose for it
> -- and having a standard that isn't structured for computer processing
> seems setting the bar pointlessly low.

Tim's URI schema supports your operations when combined with with a semantic
layer, which can be implied or meta-data based.

> For me, the strongest argument for tooling (other purely than saving
> effort) is download + verify (MD5/whatever).

That does not require the kind of semantic your earlier operations require.
The verification content can be relative to the URI provided to the tool.

        --- Noel

Reply via email to