On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The TAG is in fact clearly correct when they state that introduction >> of new URI schemes is quite expensive. > > To me it seems that this depends on the extent to which those new URI > schemes are to be used in contexts where existing URI schemes are used. New > URI schemes used in new contexts or applications are not overly burdensome. Right, but there's a contradiction lurking here. You probably wouldn't bother to use URI syntax unless you expected fairly wide utilization, or to benefit from the plethora of existing URI-parsing and -resolving software. The notion of wanting to use URI syntax but simultaneously requiring a new scheme is often a symptom of fuzzy thinking. And in the specific case of XRI, which seems designed as an extremely general-purpose thing, the cost is clearly very high, so the benefits need to be compelling. > It should also be recognized that overloading URI schemes (as well as > overloading HTTP) is also expensive, though in a different way. The > consequence of overloading is that functionality is reduced and > interoperability suffers. Got an example? I'm having trouble thinking of any problems I've run across that could be ascribed to this. -Tim _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf