Thomas Lord escribi?:
> No. The authority field may contain essentially anything. See RFC3986
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2>.
Ok, thanks. Then there isn't much structure left in URIs. The first part
is called a scheme, then comes the authority and then a path but there
is no interpretation of any of those parts.
And presto! We either have a central authority who decide what the parts
mean and who gets to use different URIs or we risk name collisions. Back
where we started.
>
> /You can put the same information into a list. And you can put
> essentially anything in the hierarchical part of a URI. /
>
>
> This argument points out an obvious truism: that it is certainly
> possible to design name mangling rules that convert between
> s-expressions and URIs. That misses some points, though:
I don't think anyone has suggested that libraries be named by arbitrary
s-expressions, just a list of symbols with an optional version added.
Yes some things might be hard write as symbols and other things are hard
to write in an URI but would you use such things to name a library?
>
> 1. That doesn't help when it comes to externalizing names.
>
> Consider writing a program, not in Scheme, which accepts as input
> the name of a Scheme library and performs a database query, using
> that name as a key. We would like people to be able to cut and
> paste library names from Scheme source code into the input to this
> program.
Then just write the Scheme source code in the simplest way. You don't
have to write "( rnrs . () )". Writing "scheme:/rN%52s" won't be
useful either.
>
>
> 2. Name mangling will produce ugly results.
See above.
>
>
> 3. S-exps, as used in the draft, are a lousy model for URIs.
>
> The particular s-exp library names in the draft are a poor model for
> URIs. For example, they offer no way to specify distinguished
> schema and authority for a name.
That is probably because the are trying to model useful library names,
not URIs.
> 4. The motivation for s-exp library names is suspect.
>
> The main "pro" argument for s-exp based library names seems to be a
> desire to standardize the rule for mapping a name used to refer to a
> library to the installed library presumed to be intended.
No, the main reason for using s-exps is that Scheme usually represents
things by s-exps.
---
Anyway, do you have a concrete suggestion for how library names should
be specified using URIs? I'm in no way against URIs.
/Mikael
Received on Thu Jun 28 2007 - 17:01:00 UTC