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.
Alex Shinn <alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote at 2006-01-26T10:37:02+0900: > On 1/26/06, Neil Van Dyke <neil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] 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. > > The recommended approach would probably be to use a URN (rfc2141): That's what I would've said, til I heard an offhand remark from one person a while ago, which made me wonder whether URNs had fallen into disfavour. I've not been in the loop on that lately. I definitely think that some W3C and IETF people should be consulted about the use of URIs in the Scheme module system, if they've not been already. -- http://www.neilvandyke.org/