- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:25:27 +0200
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, IRI WG mailing list <public-iri@w3.org>
On 01.10.2010 08:43, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > ... > However, especially in respect to the question of whether to define an > IRI scheme or an URI scheme, I think it would be much more productive to > try and see whether this scheme proposal fits > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hansen-iri-4395bis-irireg-00.txt > (which allows registration of new schemes both as URIs and as IRIs and > makes clear that there is only one registry), and on the other hand > check whether draft-hansen-iri-4395bis-irireg is written so that it > allows to do what works best in the case of the 'javascript:' scheme. > ... Hi Martin, I'm not sure what Björn's plans with respect to timing are. But if he's willing to add a dependency on the new registration procedure than his spec is certainly a good test case for it. ...so I'd say it's up to Björn... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 14:26:05 UTC