W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > May 2012

RE: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 15:04:19 -0700
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AD5454D@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I think it is in scope to fix the registration guidelines to clarify the registration process, in areas where registrants often make mistakes.

This is one of them.

== proposed add ==
"In general, a URI or an IRI can be thought of as   consisting of
    <scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>#<fragment>.

However, the registration defines <scheme> and the syntax and semantics of <fragment>  depends only on the media type of the representation accessed. New scheme definitions MUST NOT define syntax or semantics of fragment identifiers; that is, registration specifications should define the syntax of <scheme-specific-part> and its meaning for each <scheme> defined.
==end proposed add==




-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 5:01 PM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: public-iri@w3.org; Magnus Westerlund
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu

* Larry Masinter wrote:
>Note on IRI working group document 4395bis:
>
>I wonder if we should explicitly disallow documents that define new
>schemes from defining fragment identifier syntax within the
>scheme-specific syntax listed or referred to, in the scheme registration
>template.

I think that is quite explicit already, but a reminder seems to be in
order, I've certainly complained about this in a number of registrations
and encountered a number people, and implementations, that had bizarre
ideas about fragment identifiers being specific to individual schemes.

The general idea would be to say something like URIs are

  <scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>#<fragment>

and schemes can only constrain the first two components. It might be a
good idea to ask people who got this wrong in the past what could be
done to avoid their confusion.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 22:12:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:44 UTC