[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comment on vicinties vs URIs

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 59 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 59 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:30:03 -0800, Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Vicinities that aren't general enough to handle URIs don't get the job
> done.  There's no point bothering to define an API for them.

Just a short remark before this discussion will go out of hand:

- This SRFI doesn't look like a general pathname facility to me, if I understand
  it correct, it merely is intended to simplify accessing common resource-
  locations relative to the executing program and/or implementation
  ("pathname->vicinty" being the one exception)
- It does so in a reasonably simple manner, any attempt to blow this up
  into a "the network is the filesystem" be-all-and-end-all device
  might be buzzword compliant and trendy, but really is unneccessary.
  We still live with our local filesystem and will so for a good deal of time
  to come.
- It should be apparent that generalizing this all to URIs brings with it
  some security issues
- Even if an all-is-an-URI solution is to be found, I don't see why it couldn't
  be compatible with the current (non-URI) draft.