At 14:51 25/05/04 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote: >> > 3. Is there an *authoritiative* list of *proposed* schemes that are >> > undergoing this approval process? >> >>No; at least: I'm not aware of one. > >I think what would come closest to this is the IETF draft tracker at >https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi. But of course >it's tough to find the drafts that relate to URI scheme proposals >in there. Just a thought... Recently, a proposal [1] for registering message header fields was approved as BCP (yet to be published as RFC), which provides for a "provisional" registry as a way to address this kind of issue. Maybe consider something similar for URI schemes? I note an argument against this is that it might appear to encourage a proliferation of URI schemes, which would have costs not associated with message headers. (TOH, maybe better to proliferate in public view than in private enclaves?) #g -- [1] http://www.ninebynine.org/IETF/Messaging/HdrRegistry/draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-07.html (This is my personal website copy, I can't get to the IETF I-D search engine right now, and it seems the IETF-announce message archives have been moved yet again.) Ah, here it is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-07.txt ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#ContactReceived on Tuesday, 25 May 2004 04:30:11 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 25 May 2004 04:30:13 EDT