- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:13:24 +0100
On 26.11.2010 11:54, Brett Zamir wrote: > ... > My apologies for the lack of clarity on the approval process. I see all > the protocols listed with them, so I wasn't clear. > > In any case, I still see the need for both types being reserved (and for > their subnamespaces targeted by the protocol handler), in that > namespacing is built into the XRI unlike for informal URNs which could > potentially conflict. > ... I'm still not sure what you mean by "reserve" and what that would mean for the spec and for implementations. I do agree that the current definition doesn't work well for the "urn" URI scheme, as, as you observed, semantics depend on the first component (the URN namespace). Do you have an example for an URN namespace you actually want a protocol handler for? Finally, I'd recommend not to open the XRI can-of-worms (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Extensible_Resource_Identifier>). Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 26 November 2010 03:13:24 UTC