Ludovic Court?s wrote:
> SRFI-84 discusses this and the conclusion was [0]:
>
> * Basing library identifiers on globally assigned identifiers (such as
> domain names or email addresses) is problematic, because you may stop
> using or lose control of your domain name or email address.
URI syntax is not defined in terms of domain names or email addresses. You
are confusing URIs with a subclass of URIs, namely URLs.
> (And it
> just moves the responsibility for getting you a unique identifier on
> to some already existing system such as the domain name system).
>
>
That is a problem with URLs, not URIs. All people, no authority
required, are
free to assemble in communities defined by an agreement on the meaning of
URI method field values. Within a given agreed upon method, naming
authorities
may be defined fairly arbitrarily -- they are not limited to domain
names, etc.
> This applies notably to Java-like DNS-based library names. Did you have
> something else in mind?
>
Just that. URLs *can* become quickly relevant as Internet-situated
infrastructure is built-out but mainly what is called for is
standardization on URIa, nor URLs.
-t
> Thanks,
> Ludovic.
>
> [0] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-84/mail-archive/msg00028.html
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 27 2007 - 06:19:06 UTC