Hi Larry, I think that it's going to be confusing saying that some URI schemes use IRI syntax. I think it needs to be a separate discussion and mechanism. Just my two cents, Ted At 1:14 PM -0700 8/22/05, Larry Masinter wrote: >Maybe we should address this in the URI scheme registration >document--that schemes could be defined in terms of "IRI" syntax, >using RFC 3987 rules to transform them to URI syntax. > >Right now, the guidelines don't really mention that as >a possibility. > >Even so, it should still be called a "URI scheme", even >if it is defined using "IRI syntax". > >Looking at RFC 3920, does the xmpp URI scheme assume >that you're using the TCP binding? Would there be a different >scheme for a binding that uses polling over HTTP? >Is the "xmpp" scheme only for XMPP version 1.0, or is >the version negotiated independently? > >LarryReceived on Monday, 22 August 2005 21:33:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:11:48 GMT