W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: 4395bis ticket 73: Decide on organization-specific schemes

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:57:28 -0600
Message-ID: <4E56B738.5070109@stpeter.im>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
CC: public-iri@w3.org
<hat type='individual'/>

On 8/22/11 10:13 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 23.08.2011 2:09, Chris Weber wrote:
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/73>
>>
>> Is there any reason to pull the text in section 3.8 that relates to
>> organization-specific scheme names?  It seems a harmless
>> recommendation to me, but maybe a sentence or two on the historical
>> significance would help readers understand why the recommendation was
>> made.
> 
> If we're revising RFC 4395, we should note and remove any outdated or
> non-usable procedures/advices.  I'd like these several sentences were
> deleted, and organizations that develop their schemes registered them
> according to the general rules.

In the issue tracker, Larry Masinter commented:

   I don't think there have been any such registrations or even scheme
   names.

   It's not a bad idea to use faceted scheme names for private
   application URI schemes, but just orgname.application.purpose or
   even orgname.purpose or applicationname.purpose would also be OK and
   useful.

I agree with Mykyta that we might as well remove this code path if no
one has ever used it. Let organizations use their best judgment about
names for organization-specific schemes.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 20:57:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:02 GMT