https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43342
--- Comment #3 from Ori Livneh <o...@wikimedia.org> --- (In reply to comment #1) > I don't think your comparisons are very good. BitCoin and SecondLife have > their own custom protocols. Hence they have a custom scheme to point to the > location of the resource. Without the scheme there is no other way to > address anything via URI. RFC 3495 specifically allows for schemes that do not act as locators; cf section 2.3: "Schemes that are not intended to be used as locators SHOULD describe how the resource identified can be determined or accessed by software that obtains a URI of that scheme." (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395) The description in this case would take the form of a mapping of wiki:// URIs to the set of URLs currently usable for retrieving or editing the article. The expectation is not that wiki:// URIs would replace URLs in browsers, but that the scheme would specify a stable, permanent, protocol-independent way of addressing wiki content, irrespective of the means of its retrieval. > The use of interwiki prefixes as hosts is also not a sound idea. Interwiki > prefixes are non-global. An absolute url is not supposed to be relative to > where you use it. Right; for that reason, the current set of interwiki link short forms would serve as the starting point for the top-level naming authority for wikis, as described in section 2.2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
