- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:11:55 -0800
- To: uri@w3.org
> ...I'd also like to see a stick such as "all > URI schemes referenced by standards track documents must be fully > registered and documented." And then that is at a minimum. I would > personally prefer that be extended to all RFCs (experimental, > information, etc) and W3C standards. Well, draft-hansen-etc is targeted as an IETF BCP; I think it could be "best current practice" that URI schemes in RFCs be registered appropriately for the status of the document (e.g., h-permanent for standards track, at least h-provisional for others). The mapping to w- levels is harder; it might be w-permanent for "full standard" but w-provisional for "standards track" and w-vernacular for all other documents. > An informative reference to the Architecure of the WWW would be nice > addition. > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ I'm not sure what kind of reference to give. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-registration (section 2.4.1) references RFC2716 and 2717, which this document intends to update. I like the reasons for not using unregistered schemes; I also like the advice against using new URI schemes when a new content-type would do. I think, though, it would be good to include these in draft-hansen-etc directly, and acknowledge webarch in the acknowledgements. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 22:11:57 UTC