On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
That's ridiculous.
First of all it's not as if HTTP is an optimal or even particularly
efficient way of accessing all kinds of resources - so you want to
permit URI schemes for as many protocols as can use them.
Well, it's not as if the presence of the "http:" scheme requires you
to use the protocol, and in fact a very high proportion of all
accesses to such resources go sideways through various caching schemes
and so on. The notion that the scheme implies the protocol is a
common and very old misconception.
But it's silly to say that existing URI schemes are sufficient for all
purposes.
Nobody has ever said such a thing. I and others have repeatedly
argued that one or another specific proposal for a new URI scheme has
a lousy cost-benefit ratio. That is the totality of this debate. -T
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf