Mikael Tillenius scripsit:
> 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.
Things aren't as bad as you make them out to be. The scheme specifies
how the authority is to be interpreted, and the system named by the
host part of the authority decides how to interpret the path (which
contains a hierarchical key) and the query (which contains zero or more
non-hierarchical keys, often but not always name-value pairs).
It's true that there is no complete and normative registry of schemes
(as there is no complete and normative registry of programming
languages, e.g.). There is a partial normative registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html , and there
is a larger informative registry, obsolete but still useful, at
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes . In practice, collision between
scheme names isn't much of a problem.
--
On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
you're not a dog. --Bill de hOra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Thu Jun 28 2007 - 23:18:49 UTC