> Tim Anderson wrote:
> >For advocates of URI parsing, what problems are you trying
> >to solve?
This is a simple matter of practicality. We've agreed to delay metadata so
we can get a nice/simple repository structure w/o all the differences of
opinion that metadata might introduce. We basically want to take existing
repository structures (Maven's, Avalon's, Gump's, etc.) and formalize them
to promote consistency/re-use.
We need a repository that is practical at this level, and practical includes
tooling/scripting & remote/local clients. Non-parsable URIs (from a loose
spec) mean an unreadable repository entries, so it is impractical without
metadata. We need parsable URIs so we can have the repository by it's own
I see your reply to Nick references additional specification. I wonder if
they just need to merge those into the full lspecification. At this stage of
development tight is far better than loose.
IMHO, we can make this repository as strict as we like to start with. We
need a tight prototypical repository, so we can build a repository and
exercise it with tools & by hand. We can't keep going back and forth in the
theoretical, we need a concrete reference, we need practical experience.