Barring definition of a separate mechanism (do you mean a separate IANA mechanism for registration of IRI schemes?), I assume we should (1) proceed with registration of a URI scheme in accordance with established procedures and (2) define the scheme in terms of URI syntax rather than IRI syntax. #1 seems straightforward but I remain somewhat confused about #2 since previous IESG feedback indicated that it would be preferable in our case to re-use the transformation rules already specified in RFC 3987. Peter Ted Hardie wrote: > 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? >> >>Larry > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:11:48 GMT