Re: Section on https

TB wrote:

> > We nuked this due to under-cookedness.  I'm sympathetic to Ian's 
> > point, so I've shaken & stirred the existing language slightly; 

RF wrote:

> I didn't like it because it is just wrong.  

This suggests two paths to me:

 1) Delete the example in the name of expediency.

 2) Explore the example further as what type of issue
    one should consider when thinking about inventing 
    a new URI scheme.

    Roy argues that "it's a better trade-off to separate
    the need-to-negotiate services from those that don't 
    need it." 

    I argued that the resource is the same whether secure
    access is required or not. [One could argue with that
    premise.] Why create two URIs where one suffices, especially
    if specs don't license agents to determine by string 
    comparison that they refer to the same resource?

I suspect that people will prefer to delete the example,
but it seems like a good opportunity to say "See what
kind of hard questions arise when considering a new
scheme?"

Maybe RF and TB could convene and come up with some suitable
prose. 

 _ Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447