From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>
> Even as an info URI supporter I don't like it either. We can't
force
> people to register their extensions by getting an info URI srw sub
> authority.
So the logic is: "We have a sound technical solution to unambiguous
extension names (if you prefix an extension name with, for example,
'info-3' then it's effectively fully qualified), and anyone who want
to avail himself of this solution can, and anyone who doesn't, doesn't
have to (but then has to find another solution). But this approach is
not fair to the people who don't want to use info URIs, because the
people who do have an unfair advantage as they get to qualify their
extension names more easily".
I suppose this all depend on whether we think extensions will ever be
widely implemented. If you want to argue that extensions are a fun
academic exercise, then nevermind. But they're never going to be taken
seriously without unambiguous names (which we must have thought to be
important, since we namespace them for SRW).
As to 'info' -- it might never make the big list
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes), but it's here to stay.
The disconnect between computer scientists (who run the ietf) and the
rest of the information retrieval world isn't going to cause all the
work that's been done on registries -- OpenURL, OAI, etc -- to be
discarded just because info doesn't make some list, particularly since
there aren't even any published procedures for making that list. I
want to say this to the info bashers: you need to come up with a
better argument than "it's not apprroved".
On the suggestion that you can learn extension names via explain, two
words: "Deep Custard". Remember that (very long) discussion? Which
resulted in the firm conclusion that that approach won't work.
--Ray
|