[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.

 | 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

 | 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.