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

Re: comment on vicinties vs URIs



 | Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:10:24 -0800
 | From: Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 | 
 | felix winkelmann wrote:
 | 
 |  > - 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.
 | 
 | Partly it's a matter of naming.  The term "vicinity" is unclear and
 | non-standard.

I intentionally did the research to find a synonym for location which
*HAD NO COMPUTER PRIOR ART*.  Because it is free of prior art, it can
be defined without confusion; and hopefully come to mean that
definition.

 | Plus if it is written purely for local files, some issues and
 | details will probably be awkward to generalize later.  Even if one
 | is designing an API for local files, it is a good idea to keep in
 | mind at design time what issues might arise from generalizing it.

I will rewrite it to permit URIs.  But changing the name vicinity to
URI brings in tons of baggage I don't want.