From: Sean O'D. <se...@ce...> - 2004-08-31 18:39:51
|
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 11:04, Clark C. Evans wrote: > > Well, the '/' implies path semantics and the taguri specification uses > the comma... I don't see a reason to change. Perhaps to make it easier for people new to YAML to understand what they are. domain/resource is very similar to URLs which people already understand. > | * Since ":" separates key names from values in a YAML doc, it's kind of > | confusing to have them separating the date and type in > | "cla...@gm.../2004-08-20/int". > > Once again, just following taguri specification, and given that all > options seem equal, I don't see a reason to not follow suit. I guess I don't understand what the advantage of using taguri is in the first place. People are already familiar with URLs, so why is taguri better? > | * Using "/" to separate all elements of the domain (taguri?) is pretty > | intuitive to me, and it makes looking at the domain much easier. > > As I said above, '/' implies path semantics, which isn't true in this > case. Using ':' is well established as a separator in URNs, and taguri > is a URN. This is kinda separate issue; do we want to invent our own > uri standard. I don't think so. Well, consider this. One day, schemes will probably be external to documents, and they may reside in various locations, such as on web servers. It might be very useful to code namespace documents as URLs, so you can say: "http://domain.org/2002-01-01/mytype." But also, taguri doesn't seem designed to locate external resources at all. "domain.org,2002:type" is not a path to a local file, and there is no protocol information at all that I can tell. It just seems URL is a much more flexible, forward-looking style, and people will understand it much better. I don't see the advantage in taguri at all. Sean O'Dell |