On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
The TAG is in fact clearly correct when they state that introduction
of new URI schemes is quite expensive.
To me it seems that this depends on the extent to which those new URI
schemes are to be used in contexts where existing URI schemes are used. New
URI schemes used in new contexts or applications are not overly burdensome.
Right, but there's a contradiction lurking here. You probably
wouldn't bother to use URI syntax unless you expected fairly wide
utilization, or to benefit from the plethora of existing URI-parsing
and -resolving software. The notion of wanting to use URI syntax but
simultaneously requiring a new scheme is often a symptom of fuzzy
thinking.
And in the specific case of XRI, which seems designed as an extremely
general-purpose thing, the cost is clearly very high, so the benefits
need to be compelling.
It should also be recognized that overloading URI schemes (as well as
overloading HTTP) is also expensive, though in a different way. The
consequence of overloading is that functionality is reduced and
interoperability suffers.
Got an example? I'm having trouble thinking of any problems I've run
across that could be ascribed to this. -Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf