inventing URI schemes considered harmful (was: e-book reader)
simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk
Fri Aug 3 06:40:04 EDT 2007
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 at 19:02:40 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> Yoric wrote:
> > By opposition, the library: protocol
> > * doesn't break anything
> > * can work together with any delivery protocol (we're using mostly http:
> > and file:, but also jar: for decompression and we hope we'll be able to
> > use some peer-to-peer protocol in the future for distributed libraries)
> > * already takes advantage of Mozilla's caching
> > * resolves ambiguities between book identifier / resources inside the
> > book / book inside book / etc.
"New URI Schemes: 99% Harmful"
A specification SHOULD reuse an existing URI scheme (rather than create
a new one) when it provides the desired properties of identifiers and
their relation to resources.
If you're positive that you need a new URI scheme, please do it
properly: consult <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt> and
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2718.txt> for details.
More information about the Devel