Re: prs-/vnd- not broad enough; how about "ext-"

On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 14:02, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-king-vnd-urlscheme-03.txt
> 
> The text clarifies that the term "vendor" isn't actually intended to
> mean "vendor".  
> 
>      > The term "vendor" is used in this document for simplicity.
> 
> It seems to me that this moves the complexity from the the RFC out
> into the world of everyone using the schemes.

And the whole notion of a non-IETF tree is predicated on
an assumption that it's good to let a thousand URI schemes
bloom.

I'm not sure about that at all. I'm starting to think
that URI schemes are somewhat like currencies. A few
of them is good, but a zillion of them is counter-productive.

"Why shouldn't I create a new scheme for XYZ?

      * New URI schemes are the only thing you can't FollowYourNose to
        look them up."
  -- http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/