Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "John Cowan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Question: How much impact would a solution such as the one proposed by
> > Seairth Jacobs have? That is, the "Scheme-Independent Universal
> > Identifier (SI-URI)" concept which drops the scheme from the URI
> > ("//seairth.com/AbstractResource").
> That already means something: it is an URL relative to the current scheme.
> Such things are deprecated, but they do exist.
> Instead, use an URN like urn:publicid:seairth.com:AbstractResource.
Yes, but you couldn't really take the URN and meaningfully do this with it:
Sure. According to URIs, //seairth.com/AbstractResource is considered
relative to the current scheme. That assumes that there *is* a current
scheme. But tell me, can you identify what scheme my example is relative
to? Now, it may be that the above format is not the ideal one to use here
(considering it matches a depricated form of the URI). How about:
This format does not include the scheme, but could still be a valid URI, at
least as I see it. Maybe you could think of this as the "anonymous" or
"generic" scheme. Or is this format depricated too?