On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's ridiculous. > > First of all it's not as if HTTP is an optimal or even particularly > efficient way of accessing all kinds of resources - so you want to > permit URI schemes for as many protocols as can use them. Well, it's not as if the presence of the "http:" scheme requires you to use the protocol, and in fact a very high proportion of all accesses to such resources go sideways through various caching schemes and so on. The notion that the scheme implies the protocol is a common and very old misconception. > But it's silly to say that existing URI schemes are sufficient for all > purposes. Nobody has ever said such a thing. I and others have repeatedly argued that one or another specific proposal for a new URI scheme has a lousy cost-benefit ratio. That is the totality of this debate. -T _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf