Well, gee Roy. You might like to help us out some by expanding on some of these claims.They are a little expansive. > The "info" scheme proposal misuses almost every single aspect of URI > syntax, philosophy, technology, and accepted best practice. We are very much trying to be consistent with URI syntax, philosophy and technology and are carefully tracking latest changes in -bis. (I won't claim 'accepted best practice' because this is a new URI scheme which does not have comparable antecedents.) We have received no feedback on the list since submitting the -01 revision last December, so it is difficult to know if we have introduced elements that are inconsistent with URI practice. It is certainly not our intention to 'misue'. > There is > no need for it to exist at all. But somehow there is felt to be a clear need which is what is driving this application. > Yes, it would be better to use either > the generic authority syntax or the URN authority syntax for new URI > schemes that make use of delegated naming authorities. There are problems with both of these approaches which have been carefully documented in the FAQ (available at <http://info-uri.info/> and presented earlier on this list when the -00 draft was posted. Tony Tony Hammond mail: tony@tonyhammond.net home: +44-(0)20-7704-1499 cell: +44-(0)7969-830-601Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 05:13:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:11:45 GMT