This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 83 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 83 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Lauri Alanko <la@xxxxxx> wrote at 2006-01-25T19:19:28+0100:
> Any sane implementation will first parse the URI into its constituents
> and form a list of path segments, and then operate on that list. It
> would be just silly to constantly parse and unparse the URIs at every
> operation, so it's better to have a distinct internal representation for
> them. And indeed, this is why many languages do have special types or
> classes for representing URIs.
Regarding this assertion, one additional data point: my "uri.scm"
library ("http://www.neilvandyke.org/uri-scm/";) supports both string and
parsed representations of URIs, and allows them to be intermixed. I
expect most programmers will just use the string representations, as
they are more convenient and familiar in general.
Regarding the use of URI syntax by the proposed module system: that
strikes me as potentially a great idea. Before codifying a URI use like
this in a Scheme standard, I'd be curious how this meshes with the
Internet. For example, I imagine that W3C- and IETF-types would have
comments wrt the authority component of the URI if the "scheme"
URI-scheme were proposed. I suspect some would question whether or not
a new URI-scheme is needed, which might beg other questions.
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/