W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-uri-cg@w3.org > October 2003

URI guidelines and webarch [was: DOI and the non-IETF tree]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:45:14 -0500
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: public-uri-cg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1063982713.23392.58.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 12:59, Larry Masinter wrote:
> > "Authors of specifications SHOULD avoid introducing new URI  schemes
> when
> > existing schemes can be used to meet the goals of the specifications."
> >  --
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/#pr-new-scheme-expensive
> > 
> > "To help parties know when they are referring to the same resource, it
> > follows that URI producers should be conservative about the number of
> > different URIs they produce for the same resource."
> >  --
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20030627/#identifiers-comparison
> Since people with URI scheme proposals who want 'official' endorsement
> will look to the IETF and not necessarily to the 'Web Architecture'
> document, should there be a joint IETF/W3C activity to update the
> URI registration BCP and guidelines documents to include this new
> advice?

Seems in order, yes...

> Update 2718?

Which one is that? ah yes... Guidelines for new URL Schemes ...
need to cite that under
"How do I register a new URI scheme?" in

Note that I'm moving the parts of
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/* that are supposed to represent
community consensus into the ESW Wiki to subject them
to WikiConsensus.

I'm also reviewing the URI CG schedule

It's not going very quickly, but I hope you can see that
there's movement...

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 02:13:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:38:47 UTC