Post

how do we feel about `space://`?

I'd prefer not another URI scheme

what about adding a "private" type to lexicons to avoid another uri scheme? is that a bad idea?

It breaks the protocol in a way as yhen every developer needs to define a new set of lexicons that would structurally be identical.

so the idea is that a if it's under a different uri than you can reuse lexicons but it resolves the data differently?

And why can't that be done in an at:// URI?

I'm assuming that adding a new uri also introduces new headaches for the working group/people working on standards?

I think the big question is how much different / separate / incompatible all of this new stuff will be from all the current stuff…

in case it got buried, I like Emelia's suggestion: at://<did>/<extension>/<nsid> where here <extension> is "space" or w/e to denote private data, avoids new uri or adding some kind of private type to the Lexicon type system

i'll be honest, i'm warming up to this one...

Right, which makes it even more the WGs responsibility to make sure our URI scheme works for multiple future needs, and doesn't lock us into one usage

hmm that's a fair point... what do you think about the fact that you can't discern between a space ref (space did + type + skey) and a record uri (author did + collection + rkey) without doing resolution first?

what else could we do besides type annotation or a new uri? not a real suggestion but a private subdomain ex: com.mynsid.private?

What about introducing another URI segment to allow that?