- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:35:53 +0200
- To: piotr@ideanest.com, uri@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Piotr Kaminski [mailto:piotr@ideanest.com]
> Sent: 22 November, 2001 09:31
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere); uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency
>
>
> Patrick Stickler proposed:
> > My proposal was specifically:
> >
> > URI ::= scheme ":"
> > URI ::= "urn" ":" <NID> ":"
> >
> > The first case is not a valid URI for the scheme, but is a valid
> > URI denoting the scheme. The second case is not a valid URI for
> > the URN namespace, but is a valid URI denoting the URN namespace.
>
> How about a URI scheme for URI schemes? Something like:
>
> scheme:dav
> scheme:http
> scheme:urn:someNID
>
> and, of course,
>
> scheme:scheme
>
> This would let everybody refer to URI schemes in the same
> way, and doesn't
> need any changes in grammar or interpretation for current
> standards.
That would be an advantage.
> The
> disadvantage being that it introduces yet another scheme...
Quite so.
I also suspect that *alot* of applications already treat URI
scheme prefixes as unique identifiers (even if not fully valid
URIs) and so a change to (or perhaps merely an interpretation of)
the current specs such as I proposed would be more backwards
compatible.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 03:36:21 UTC