Tim Bray wrote:
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 not a misconception. In the vast majority of contexts if you
name a resource using an HTTP URI then it's expected that if that
resource is at all accessible over the Internet, it's accessible via
HTTP using the information in that URI.
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
I am sure that many URI proposals have poor cost-benefit ratios. That's
reason to give them scrutiny, but not a reason to reject the idea of
having new URI types, nor to overload existing URI types.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf