Skip to content

Conversation

@keith-turner
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@ctubbsii ctubbsii left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not think we should do this. URI is just an identifier, and could contain almost anything. We are specifically working with URLs because URLs carry semantics about being a resource that is network-reachable at the specified location. URI doesn't do that. All of our URIs are URLs, so we should use the more specific type. That's what allows us to connect to them, create streams to download them, etc. URI would let too many things through that aren't valid, and we wouldn't be able to easily detect that. It would increase the number of edge cases we'd have to take into account, by a lot.

@keith-turner
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ctubbsii attempted to address some of the points you brought up here and on #48 in c1f9438

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants