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 Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:37:02AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: > The recommended approach would probably be to use a URN (rfc2141): Also note that there is a relatively new URI scheme, "tag" (rfc4151), which just provides a simple domain- and email-based naming scheme in a URI format. If all that's required of library identifiers is that there are no accidental collisions, then tags should be as good an answer as any. Then again, the problem with that is that we also care about brevity, and it would be a bother if the standard language for most modules had to be identified with, say, "tag:schemers.org,2006:/r6rs". Of course one could define a default base uri of, say, "tag:schemers.org,2006:/", but then one couldn't use relative references to easily refer to one's own nearby modules... SRFI-84 seems to propose yet another non-standard naming system with the benefit of conciseness for most common references in Scheme world (RnRS and SRFI-n), but at the cost of some adhocness and lexical problems (symbols embedding full http URIs). And of course personally I don't like the idea of stuffing structured data into a single symbol, no matter how it is organized. Maybe the easiest thing to do would be just to chicken out and say "a library path is either a URI _or_ one of these magic special things like r6rs or srfi which are not really URIs but for which we provide these short forms since you're going to use them all the time". Lauri