W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2009

Re: http+srv worth its own URI scheme? (ISSUE-49 schemeProtocols-49)

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:12:38 +0900
Message-ID: <49D41F16.7030208@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
Actually, I think discussion about specific new URI schemes,
in particular if intended to lead to a registration, should go
to uri-review@ietf.org. uri@w3.org is more appropriate for
discussion of URIs in general.

Regards,    Martin.

P.S.: Please try to reduce the cc list when you reply to this thread.

On 2009/03/30 3:05, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I replied on this topic but (alas) changed the subject line:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Mar/0105.html.
> I'd propose moving discussions about specific new URI schemes
> to uri@w3.org.
>
> If there's a TAG issue, it would be a review of RFC 4395.
> New URI schemes require "Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility",
> is there anything else that needs to be said?
>
> Larry

-- 
#-# Martin J.Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 02:13:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:42 GMT