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