- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:59:12 -0700
- To: "'Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress'" <rden@loc.gov>, "'Tim Kindberg'" <timothy@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, hardie@qualcomm.com
- Cc: "'sandro hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'tim Kindberg'" <timothy@hpl.hp.com>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, uri@w3.org
I have an informal confirmation that a URIREV4
BOF is scheduled for Friday morning, August 6.
> Without discussing specific schemes in detail, could you at least list
those
> that are "problematic"? I assume that if "problematic schemes" are on the
> agenda then someone must be able to list them. It would even be better if
> there could be a short summary of the problem for each!
Your assumption is false. I don't have a list of "problematic schemes",
certainly not an exhaustive list.
I've observed that some schemes seem to go through without
any discussion, while others have had a lot, and some difficulty
deciding whether or not to approve them. I might put "info"
and "tag" (and "tdb" and "duri" and "about" and "access" for that matter)
in the list, but I'm not sure if they're considered problematic by anyone,
or just have fallen through the cracks.
I might hazard a guess that URIs are "problematic" because it's
HARD to characterize exactly what is the "problem", and that
a "short summary of the problem" is something that we'd all
like to have.
Between now and Friday morning, I will be happy to collect
a list of URI schemes from anyone who wishes to volunteer
such a list, with a brief description of
the scheme
pointer to the description, application, internet-draft
describing the scheme
very brief history of attempts to register the scheme
(e.g., date / 3-4 word description of event)
If you'll send me your 'favorite' problematic schemes,
I'll make a list of them, and present the list.
The goal of this exercise is to try to make URI scheme
registration more deterministic.
Larry
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 20:00:12 UTC