Show Posts
The hierarchical part of an URI should be, well, hierarchical. The transaction amount is not part of any hierarchy and should therefor should be placed in the query part of the URL.
Compare with the existing schemes: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/URI_scheme#Official_IANA-registered_schemes
Or compare to the standard that the community came up with back in January: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_SchemeCompare with the existing schemes: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/URI_scheme#Official_IANA-registered_schemes
@ Luke-Jr, There never was consensus reached on that. It is not a standard, just a page on wiki. Please do not call, whatever you like, a standard, it is not. If I am wrong here please explain why.
@AlexZ. Please calm down. Insulting fellow community members does not help anyone. I would humbly suggest you to consider removing insulting remarks and hopefully apologize to 'error' either privately or publicly to get this little accident behind us.
@Error, I apologise for somewhat uncivil behaviour of AlexZ, please consider if you we can get this behind us, and if you have any suggestions, how we could modify btc: URI scheme to make it 'compliant' (whatever this means) please do tell us. I also would happy to discuss this privately, if appropriate.
Now. Back in January the consensus (IMO) was that whoever does actual implementation is in position to select which URI scheme to chose. This seems to be a very wise approach (thanks Gavin), which has potential to stimulate software development instead of facilitating URI religion wars and endless flames.
I have one practical suggestion. Lets have more than one URI scheme.
We have a well documented bitcoin: scheme RFC on wiki, great!. Let's prepare competing btc: scheme suggestion along the lines of what myself and AlexZ are advocating, let's also have bit-x: scheme (why not?).
Than whoever advocates or likes whichever scheme is free to document it, implement it, submit pull requests in competitive manner.
Best of all, we do not have to implement only one scheme. let's have all of them available, though, in different namespaces. Let market forces, webmasters, merchants, and users select and use whichever scheme appeals to them most. This IMO is very libertarian, capitalistic and fair approach, very much in spirit of bitcoin.
Frankly, I am confident that if all bitcoin: bit-x: and btc: schemes are implemented and supported than bitc: will be preferred by most people. But I may be wrong. Let's keep open mind and let's allow all schemes to be supported equally and without undue prejudice and discrimination (please, "error").
Thank You.
P.S. hey bc: namespace is up for grabs, got a better idea for URI, document it, implement it. The more, the merrier.
. 
However I do not want to discuss this here. It's not nice hijacking the thread. I just wanted to say ask you to not compare apples and oranges that's all.
