W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Editorial suggestions for draft-duerst-iri-07 [issue editorial-Lilley-27]

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:28:47 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20040519112437.00addfd0@localhost>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: public-iri@w3.org

Hello Chris,

Many thanks for your response.

At 05:26 04/05/14 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 2:59:51 PM, Martin wrote:
>
>MD> At 03:08 04/05/11 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
>MD> Many thanks for your comments. Because they are all editorial,
>MD> I have kept them as a single issue.
>MD> [http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/#editorial-Lilley-27]

> >>It might also be added that the TAG recommends not adding new schemes
> >>that are almost exactly like HTTP; i:http: or httpi: would have
> >>exactly that problem.
>
>MD> Do you have a reference? I'd like to give the underlying argument
>MD> rather than just saying 'the TAG said'.
>
>Architecture of the World Wide Web, First Edition
>Editor's Draft 10 May 2004
>
>2.4. URI Schemes
>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#URI-scheme
>
>Good practice: New URI schemes
>
>A specification SHOULD NOT introduce a new URI scheme when an existing
>scheme provides the desired properties of identifiers and their
>relation to resources

Thanks. I have decided to not reference it, although in theory,
a reference to 'work in progress' could be okay even for a
Standards Track document. But I think it's good to have this
here in the mailing list for potential future reference.
As for the underlying arguments, I think the current text already
provides them, although of course in a very compact fashion.


>Thank you, I am satisfied by the response to all my comments.

I have closed this issue.

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2004 22:29:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:53 GMT