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.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 02:40:08PM -0800, bear wrote: > But if we're to leave URI's polymorphic (admitting of two > or more syntaxes/structures), does it still make sense to > use them to identify modules? Why not? Have a syntax for URIs that includes both list structures and strings. Then you can say either (scheme "mydomain.org" (/ name of my module)) or "scheme://mydomain.org/name/of/my/module" whichever suits you best. Of course a style guideline should encourage one over the other. (Actually, I'm working on a s-expression -based URI syntax right now. The more I delve into rfc3986 the more convinced I am that switching from the string mush into something else can only improve one's sanity.) > I don't, in general, like a module naming convention that > strongly hints that the modules are to be found over a > network; some very intelligent idiot is bound to think > a single code repository is a good idea and subvert > security on entire networks if a cracker can get to it. You must not like Alice then? http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/alice/manual/components.html To me, too, the idea of using URIs as library identifiers has a strong smell of distributed components. If no other schemes but "scheme" were ever used, there would be no point of using such a general format as URI which allows other schemes too. I'm not sure whether this is a bad thing or not, though. Lauri