So, the big guns have decided that XRI is out. In a message from the TAG yesterday, variously noted as being “categorical” (Andy Powell, eFoundations) and a “proclamation” (Edd Dumbill, XML.com), the co-chairs (Tim Berners-Lee and Stuart Williams) had this to say:
“We are not satisfied that XRIs provide functionality not readily available from http: URIs. Accordingly the TAG recommends against taking the XRI specifications forward, or supporting the use of XRIs as identifiers in other specifications.”
Alas, poor XRI. But what might this also mean for other URI schemes (note the reference above to “http: URIs)? Well, the message starts out with this:
“In The Architecture of the World Wide Web 1 the TAG sets out the reasons why http: URIs are the foundation of the value proposition for the Web, and should be used for naming on the Web. “
Now I’m not sure that this is quite what AWWW actually says. I don’t find it to be that insistent that “http” URIs … should be used for naming on the Web” but I would need to read it more carefully. Certainly, “http: URIs” fit the bill and are top of the class. But there is also a general recognition that other schemes than “http:” do exist.
Interesting times anyway with a “winner takes all” approach to identification. I wonder what this all means for DOI.