On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
3. We could not directly call out a URI scheme at all. The benefit of
doing this is we can specify *behavior* without actually getting into
details about the actual identifier scheme used. But, the chief reason to
Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
3. We could not directly call out a URI scheme at all. The benefit of
doing this is we can specify *behavior* without actually getting into
details about the actual identifier scheme used. But,
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:03:23 +0100, Arun Ranganathan a...@mozilla.com
wrote:
1. We could coin a new scheme such as the originally proposed filedata:
scheme. This has the advantages of associating behavior (and semantics)
with a scheme, so that existing schemes aren't confused or co-opted
Robin Berjon wrote:
...
Couldn't we just register a URN NID for this? It seems that one has to go
through fewer hurdles, and no matter how transient I believe that it's a useful
thing to identify.
...
Yes, that's possible and probably would cause less eyebrows being raised...
BR, Julian
On Nov 18, 2009, at 13:13 , Julian Reschke wrote:
Robin Berjon wrote:
...
Couldn't we just register a URN NID for this? It seems that one has to go
through fewer hurdles, and no matter how transient I believe that it's a
useful thing to identify.
...
Yes, that's possible and probably
Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Is there a particular reason why a specific URI scheme needs to be
called out at all?
(there are other schemes that may be more flexible, for instance
because they allow using a UUID/String pair for identification).
This is a useful question to answer :)
I assume
