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

Re: Registration timing of new URI schemes

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:01:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4A8D02F2.9080805@ninebynine.org>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
CC: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
I would say that *provisional* registration is a reasonable step when:

(a) you have a reasonable notion that you really do get benefit from a new 
scheme and that it is probably distinct in some important technical or social 
respect from all existing schemes (that debate will never be final until the 
process results in a standard, and maybe not even then :)

(b) preferably have a good name for the scheme that is not likely to cause 
confusion or conflict, and is not expected to change

A touchstone for this might be that you have a good (not necessarily final) 
description of what the new-scheme URIs would identify, and how they would be used.

#g
--


Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> While working on a new protocol we (might have) identified a need for a new URI scheme. The problem is that the protocol and use cases are still in their early stage, and will require multiple iterations and experimentation to figure out. At the same time, this effort has failed over the past two years because of attempts to find the 'ideal' solution prior to real work experimentations. We are trying something different now by building a couple of live services offered by some large web players.
> 
> The proposed new URI scheme is not yet well defined. We only have small bits of information about how it should work, whether it could/should be resolvable, and if it should be bound to a specific protocol. But we are only going to figure it out by experimentation.
> 
> The question is, at what point should we request a provisional registration of the new URI scheme? How much running code and actual deployment is appropriate? We might end up using an existing scheme instead or decide that the new scheme is indeed required.
> 
> I am asking this because I have no desire to spend time and energy discussing a new URI scheme (and provisional at that) when we clearly don't have all the answers. But at the same time, I don't want to cause problems by using a new scheme that is not at all registered.
> 
> Any guidelines? BCP 35 does not provide guidelines as to *when* should a new URI scheme be registered and how much experimentation is allowed.
> 
> EHL
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 08:06:23 GMT

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